Sultan v. Sultan

• Decision Date: 27 March 1942
• Parties: SULTAN v. SULTAN.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

7 So.2d 108

150 Fla. 266

SULTAN v. SULTAN.

Florida Supreme Court

March 27, 1942

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E Chillingworth, judge.

R. B Gautier, of Miami, for appellant.

Elmore Cohen, of West Palm Beach, for appellee.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

On April 22, 1941 the Honorable C. E. Chillingworth, Circuit Judge of Palm Beach County, Florida, entered a decree granting plaintiff below, Alexander Sultan, (a) a divorce; (b) awarded the custody of Lillian Sultan and Frances Sultan, minor girl children, to their mother, Selma Selame Sultan; (c) ordered the plaintiff below, Alexander Sultan, to pay the sum of $12 per week for the support and maintenance of the children; (d) costs of the proceedings, inclusive of an attorney's fee were awarded against the plaintiff. From this final decree an appeal has been perfected to this Court.

It is first contended by the wife, appellant, that the evidence adduced on the part of the husband failed to support the charges of extreme cruelty and desertion. We have read the testimony appearing in the record and the briefs of counsel and we are forced to the conclusion that the evidence is rather weak. The rule controlling this court on appeal is whether or not the trial court was in error in entering the challenged decree.

It is next asserted that the plaintiff failed to establish by competent evidence his residence in Florida so as to maintain the suit. Mrs Baker testified that the plaintiff had lived as a boarder in her home at West Palm Beach for a period of about two years prior to the filing of the suit at bar. It is true that a portion of this time he was working in the City of New Orleans. We think there is sufficient testimony in the record to sustain his residence in Florida and the right to maintain this suit. If the appellant desired to contest this issue, the procedure outlined in Bowmall v. Bowmall, 127 Fla. 747, 174 So. 14, should have been followed.

The appellant married the appellee in 1935 when she was 28 years of age and had accumulated an attractive bank account. The inference is deducible from the testimony that the husband was primarily interested in the bank account and secondarily in the owner thereof. The appellee, prior to the marriage, was a divorcee and his affection for the appellant at the most was warmed over, rehashed, mercenary and no possible opportunity existed for his hide to...