Mays v. Mays
| Decision Date | 14 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--49,67--49 |
| Citation | 203 So.2d 674 |
| Parties | James B. MAYS, Appellant, v. Eleanore Ball MAYS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John F. Harkness, No. Miami, for appellant.
Joseph A. McGowan, Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The husband, defendant below, appeals from a final decree of divorce for the wife, plaintiff below.
The final decree found that husband 'guilty of the allegations of the complaint as amended' and 'that the defendant engaged in a course of conduct inimical to the wife's welfare and that he § guilty of the charges made by the pleadings.' The husband claims that reversible error was committed in this finding.
The appellant husband has failed to provide us, in the record on appeal, with a copy of the complaint, as amended. We cannot find reversible error under the circumstances. See Gilson v. Murphy, Fearnley and Yawn, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 447.
The husband also claims error in the award by the final decree of the home of the parties on Miami Beach, Florida and two hundred shares of Florida Power and Light Company stock, each in both names, to the wife, under the theory of a resulting trust. The record shows that the wife alone contributed the money for the purchase of the house and stock, although it was registered in both their names.
In Olsen v. Olsen, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 864, we said:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
Here, the record shows no attempt was made by the husband to establish a gift from the wife to himself of this real and personal property and he has therefore failed to carry this burden.
The appellee wife has cross-assigned as error the denial of attorney fees to her by the final decree. The granting of suit money and attorney fees in a divorce action is within the sound judicial discretion of a chancellor. Ames v. Ames, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 737. Under the facts and circumstances in this case no abuse of discretion has clearly been shown.
I am impelled to dissent from the majority affirmance of that portion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Ball
...of the wife had existed in Florida in these situations. See, e. g., Hegel v. Hegel, 248 So.2d 212 (Fla.App. 3d 1971); Mays v. Mays, 203 So.2d 674 (Fla.App. 3d 1967); Jones v. Jones, 121 So.2d 811 (Fla.App. 3d 1960). Cf., Pyle v. Pyle, 53 So.2d 312 (Fla.1951), in which the doctrine of result......
-
Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 70-574
...a special equity therein. Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 52; Wollman v. Wollman, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 315; Mays v. Mays, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 674. In determining whether or not the award in question should be considered as lump sum alimony and deemed to have been properly mad......
-
Powell v. Powell, 76-2036
...from her separate estate was deemed to be held for her in trust by her husband. Pyle v. Pyle, 53 So.2d 312 (Fla.1951); Mays v. Mays, 203 So.2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Beginning with Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), the Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered sev......
-
Ball v. Ball
...equity from her separate caste is being held by her husband for her in trust. Pyle v. Pyle, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 312; Mays v. Mays, Fla.App.3d, 1967, 203 So.2d 674. In 1971 our sister court in Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, Fla.App.4th, 1971, 252 So.2d 825, held for the first time that under such ......