Schwenk v. Schwenk
| Decision Date | 18 November 1947 |
| Citation | 159 Fla. 694,32 So.2d 734 |
| Parties | SCHWENK v. SCHWENK. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1947.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; John U. Bird, judge.
Joseph W. Nichols, of Clearwater for appellant.
Casler & Douglas, of Clearwater, for appellee.
The bill of complaint in the case at bar was brought under the provisions of Section 65.09, Fla.Stats. 1941, F.S.A., which authorizes courts of equity to award alimony without granting a divorce. On final hearing the chancellor below entered an order dismissing the bill of complaint without prejudice but requiring the husband to pay counsel fees for the wife and on appeal here it is contended that the chancellor was powerless under the law to make and enter such an order because the parties had not been residents in the State of Florida for ninety days. We cannot agree to this contention because the ninety day residence period prior to filing suit for divorce is wholly inapplicable to suits by a wife for alimony filed under Section 65.09, supra. See Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So.2d 870. So the part of the decree appealed from, challenged because fees were allowed plaintiffs' attorneys, is affirmed.
Since the husband perfected this appeal the wife has applied here by appropriate motion for an order allowing her counsel fees in this Court and the motion is granted and her fees allowed in the sum of $250.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Jones
-
Legget v. CIR
...531, 542 (1943); Hyman, The Florida Divorce Law, 6. We recognize there are statements looking somewhat the other way. Schwenk v. Schwenk, 159 Fla. 694, 32 So. 2d 734 (1947); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 125 So.2d 553 (Fla.1960); Greenberg v. Greenberg, 101 So.2d 608 (Fla.D.C.App. 1958). We have note......
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley
...a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, on the ground that said decision is in conflict with Schwenk v. Schwenk, 1948, 159 Fla. 694, 32 So.2d 734, and Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 1941, 147 Fla 243, 2 So.2d 870, decided by this court. The case arose from these W. C. Tinsley, ......
-
Tinsley v. Tinsley
...statute (§ 65.09) nevertheless the latest expression by the Supreme Court of Florida on this section is contained in Schwenk v. Schwenk, 159 Fla. 694, 32 So.2d 734, 735, decided in 1948. The Supreme Court in that case departed from its prior holdings construing this statute and its predeces......