Raley v. Raley
| Decision Date | 20 February 1951 |
| Citation | 50 So.2d 870 |
| Parties | RALEY v. RALEY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Coe & Coe, Pensacola, for appellant.
Herbert Latham, Pensacola, for appellee.
The record in this case discloses that the parties hereto were first married to each other on October 14, 1929. The wife, for a period of time after this marriage, obtained employment as a secretary at a salary ranging from $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 per annum. The parties pooled their funds and established an electrical supply business in the City o Pensacola under the management of the husband. A child was born to the marriage, who is now about seven years of age. A home was purchased and it is valued at a sum between ten and twelve thousand dollars. Unhappy differences arose between the parties, which resulted later in a division of all their property, or a friendly property settlement or adjustment, and a divorce on September 15, 1947.
On December 10, 1948, the parties remarried and lived together as husband and wife until February 7, 1950, when the wife filed in the Civil Court of Record of Escambia County, Florida, the present suit under the provisions of Section 65.09, F.S.A. The wife's bill of complaint charged that the husband, in August, 1949, 'knocked her down and stamped on her head and did her painful injury and on the morning of February 5, 1950, he assaulted and struck her, and on many occasions between has done the like'. The bill of complaint did not pray for a divorce from her husband, but it alleged the existence of a cause or causes for divorce, such as (1) habitual intemperance and (2) extreme cruelty--charging that the husband, between the dates of August, 1949, and February, 1950, assaulted the wife and did her bodily violence, was quarrelsome, lewd in his behavior, abusive and drunken and for these reasons it was impossible for her to live with him. She alleged that she feared violence and bodily injury and therefore was forced to live separate and apart from her husband. The bill of complaint prayed: (1) for alimony and counsel fees; (2) that the husband be required to vacate the home; (3) that a writ of ne exeat issue; (4) that the husband be restrained from molesting the wife or the child of the parties; and (5) that an allowance of separate maintenance be decreed.
The answer of the husband admitted the second marriage of the parties and a cohabitation as husband and wife until February, 1950. The answer specifically denied the allegations of the bill of complaint charging: (1) habitual intemperance and (2) extreme cruelty. The husband admitted that it was the intention of the wife to live separate and apart from him, but denied the existence of any reasonable basis for so doing, or that any cause or causes for divorce exist against him or that any reasonable ground exists for fear of violence. He charged that he voluntarily left home after the wife abandoned him. He admitted that the home life of the parties had been destroyed but without fault on his part. He admits that the plaintiff-wife is not now employed but alleged that she is capable of earning a livelihood as an experienced business woman and bookkeeper. In a counter claim the husband prayed for a divorce and alleged acts of misconduct on the part of the wife which in law constituted extreme cruelty.
The Chancellor orally heard all the testimony adduced by the parties on the issues made by the bill of complaint, the answer and counter claim of the defendant and the reply of the plaintiff, and entered a final decree. The Chancellor held: (1) that the plaintiff-wife failed to sustain her prayer for separate maintenance; (2) that the husband failed to sustain his counter claim praying for a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty; (3) the parties were living apart and the custody of their minor child, Kirby L. Raley, Jr., was awarded to the mother, with visitation privileges to the father; (4) the father was ordered to pay the mother the sum of $100.00 per month 'solely for the maintenance of the child'; (5) the decree required the defendant-husband to pay the plaintiff-wife's solicitor the sum of $100.00 as a solicitor's fee in the cause and costs of the proceedings.
The plaintiff-wife appealed and here contends: (1) that the Court erred in denying separate maintenance; (2) the Court erred in fixing the amount of the maintenance of the child of the parties at the sum of $100.00 per month; and (3) the Court erred in fixing the amount of the wife's solicitor's fees at the small sum of $100.00. These questions may be considered as a single assignment. It appears by the record that the wife's net worth is about $24,000.00. It is composed of the home of the parties, with an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belcher v. Belcher
...temporary alimony. Similarly, suit money and attorney's fees turn on the wife's relative ability at the time of suit. Raley v. Raley, 50 So.2d 870, 872 (Fla.1951); former Fla.Stat. § 61.09 now § 61.16, The measure of adequate care is the historical need of the wife, ability of the husband t......
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 34957
...This decision is in direct conflict and produces a legal result in direct conflict with the decisions of this court in Raley v. Raley, Fla.1951, 50 So.2d 870; Golembeski v. Golembeski, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 654; and Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 367; and of the several District Courts of Ap......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...but does not relieve her of her responsibility to contribute to her own support, if she has wage-earning capacity. See Raley v. Raley, supra, (Fla)., 50 So.2d 870. 'In short, the Chancellor, in determining the question of what alimony, if any, should be awarded to the wife in a divorce proc......
-
Wood v. Wood, F-195
...v. Bredin, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 353, 356, 61 A.L.R.2d 942. See also Greenberg v. Greenberg, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 608. In Raley v. Raley, Fla.1951, 50 So.2d 870, the Supreme Court of Florida approved the portion of a lower court decree holding that the wife had failed to sustain her prayer ......