Close v. Close

Supreme Court of Florida

Close v. Close

29 So. 2d 625, 158 Fla. 636, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 598

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 29 So. 2d 625 (Close v. Close) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Close v. Close, 29 So. 2d 625, 158 Fla. 636, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 598 (Fla. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

SANDLER, Associate Justice:

The appellant filed her bill of complaint for separate maintenance for herself and two minor children, pursuant to the provisions of Section 65.10 F.S. 1941. This Section authorizes a suit by the wife where the “husband having ability to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his wife or minor children shall fail to do so.” In order for the suit to be maintained, the husband must be able to maintain or to contribute to the support of his family and fail. If the husband at the time of the institution of the suit is not withholding support, commensurate with the financial condition and circumstances of the parties, this action is not maintainable.

Here, the Chancellor found that at the time of the institution of the suit and during the progress thereof the appellee *637 was adequately providing for the support of his wife and children and dismissed the bill with prejudice. The finding of the Chancellor is supported by the evidence. Should the facts change, and the husband thereafter withhold support, a new action is thereafter maintainable. The action may be prosecuted whenever, and only whenever, the husband having ability to maintain or contribute “shall fail to do so.”

Considerable testimony was taken to determine who was at fault in the separation of the parties, but this question becomes immaterial in view of the finding that the appellee was not withholding support from his family.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C.J.,- BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SANDLER, Associate Justice:

The appellant filed her bill of complaint for separate maintenance for herself and two minor children, pursuant to the provisions of Section 65.10 F.S. 1941. This Section authorizes a suit by the wife where the “husband having ability to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his wife or minor children shall fail to do so.” In order for the suit to be maintained, the husband must be able to maintain or to contribute to the support of his family and fail. If the husband at the time of the institution of the suit is not withholding support, commensurate with the financial condition and circumstances of the parties, this action is not maintainable.

Here, the Chancellor found that at the time of the institution of the suit and during the progress thereof the appellee *637 was adequately providing for the support of his wife and children and dismissed the bill with prejudice. The finding of the Chancellor is supported by the evidence. Should the facts change, and the husband thereafter withhold support, a new action is thereafter maintainable. The action may be prosecuted whenever, and only whenever, the husband having ability to maintain or contribute “shall fail to do so.”

Considerable testimony was taken to determine who was at fault in the separation of the parties, but this question becomes immaterial in view of the finding that the appellee was not withholding support from his family.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C.J.,- BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 So. 2d 625, 158 Fla. 636, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/close-v-close-fla-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack