Stern v. Stern
| Decision Date | 16 January 1951 |
| Citation | 50 So.2d 119 |
| Parties | STERN v. STERN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Jordan Johnson, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Johnson & Johnson, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, as plaintiff sued appellee for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Defendant countered with an answer and a counterclaim in which he denied the material allegations of plaintiff's bill, prayed that he be divorced from the plaintiff and that their home, deed to which is in the name of plaintiff and defendant jointly, be decreed to be the property of defendant and not held by them as an estate by the entireties as the deed would show. On final hearing a divorce was granted defendant and the home was decreed to be an estate by the entireties held henceforth by the parties hereto as tenants in common.
At the outset plaintiff was granted a temporary solicitor's fee of $100 and temporary alimony of $50 per week. In the final decree she was denied alimony, suit money and solicitor's fees, but her solicitors were decreed to be entitled to a fee of $1500. The chancellor retained jurisdiction of the cause to award plaintiff's solicitors a lien on her undivided half interest in and to the home and furnishings to secure their fees. This was to be done after deducting any amounts paid her as temporary solicitors' fees. This appeal is from the decree so entered.
We find no error in that part of the final decree granting defendant a divorce. On this point the record as a whole presents an ugly picture. Plaintiff was emotionally immature, maladjusted, over suspicious and unable to adapt herself to a marital environment, defendant was shrewd, intolerant and supersensitive. His claim for divorce amounted to little more than recrimination against the plaintiff. It was his third matrimonial venture and her fifth. This of itself was a red light that might have put both on inquiry if it is rational to assume that inquiry be made under such circumstances. Plaintiff contends that defendant should not be granted a divorce because his claim for it is supported solely by his evidence. It is a fact that the primary evidence supporting the contention of both parties is the evidence of the parties themselves, but we think that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to support the chancellor's decree on this point.
We find no error in the fee awarded plaintiff's solicitors but we fail to find support for that part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Billingham v. Thiele
...to the cause of action, and could be enforced by appropriate action.' Continuing the line of Florida cases we come next to Stern v. Stern, Fla.1951, 50 So.2d 119, 120, where 'the chancellor retained jurisdiction of the cause to award plaintiff's solicitors a lien on her undivided half inter......
-
Conroy v. Conroy
...would be entitled to recover his fee out of the proceeds of the judgment. Billingham v. Thiele, 109 So.2d 763 (Fla.1959). In Stern v. Stern, 50 So.2d 119 (Fla.1951), the court refused to require the husband to pay his wife's attorneys' fees but awarded her attorneys a fee of $1,500.00 to be......
-
Lamoureux v. Lamoureux
...So.2d 296; Greenfield Villages v. Thompson, Fla., 44 So.2d 679; Nichols v. Kroelinger, Fla., 46 So.2d 722. Our recent case of Stern v. Stern, Fla., 50 So.2d 119, involved a divorce, alimony, suit money and the wife's solicitors' fees and the home of the parties. The Chancellor below granted......
-
Rudolph v. Rudolph, 62-143
...the husband pay the court costs. The fact that the equities in the cause were with the husband does not alter this situation. Stern v. Stern, Fla.1951, 50 So.2d 119. Therefore, we think that the decree should have directed the husband to pay the entire cost of the In accordance with the vie......