Kanter v. Kanter

Supreme Court of Florida

Kanter v. Kanter

38 So. 2d 685, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1241

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 So. 2d 685 (Kanter v. Kanter) 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

Kanter v. Kanter, 38 So. 2d 685, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1241 (Fla. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by Allen Kanter against Lillyan Kanter for divorce, wherein the decree was set aside on defendant's application. From judgments against him allowing alimony, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed. Counsel for the parties litigant on this appeal have posed different questions based on the record for adjudication here. The testimony appearing in the transcript answers clearly each question propounded. As we study the record, the pivitol points of the controversy are disputed and in conflict, and our adjudications are controlling in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion by the Chancellor below. Counsel for appellant contend that Lillyan Kanter was mentally competent to sign the property settlement dated April 6, 1946, and therefore the decree of divorce was erroneously set aside. Counsel for appellee answer the argument by stating that the conduct of the husband in obtaining the settlement was inequitable, smacked of fraud and was overreaching. There is testimony to support the contentions of each party litigant, but the Chancellor settled the issues.

The testimony clearly establishes the necessities of the wife for an allowance of alimony but she failed to carry the burden of proof required by our decisions in establishing the faculties or property holdings of her husband and his financial ability to supply the wife's necessities. Arendall v. Arendall, 61 Fla. 496, 54 So. 957, Ann.Cas. 1913A, 662, 663. The husband's health was not good and he was physically unable to follow a gainful occupation other than sell newspapers on the streets. It is possible that present conditions may change in the near future as the Chancellor did not commit the appellant for contempt for his failure to pay the sums allowed the wife but simply entered judgments against him. We cannot assume that the Chancellor, in subsequent rulings in this controversy, will rule contrary to the applicable law. Counsel for appellee are allowed counsel fees for this appeal in the sum of $250.

We fail to find error in the record.

Affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

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

Action by Allen Kanter against Lillyan Kanter for divorce, wherein the decree was set aside on defendant's application. From judgments against him allowing alimony, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed. Counsel for the parties litigant on this appeal have posed different questions based on the record for adjudication here. The testimony appearing in the transcript answers clearly each question propounded. As we study the record, the pivitol points of the controversy are disputed and in conflict, and our adjudications are controlling in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion by the Chancellor below. Counsel for appellant contend that Lillyan Kanter was mentally competent to sign the property settlement dated April 6, 1946, and therefore the decree of divorce was erroneously set aside. Counsel for appellee answer the argument by stating that the conduct of the husband in obtaining the settlement was inequitable, smacked of fraud and was overreaching. There is testimony to support the contentions of each party litigant, but the Chancellor settled the issues.

The testimony clearly establishes the necessities of the wife for an allowance of alimony but she failed to carry the burden of proof required by our decisions in establishing the faculties or property holdings of her husband and his financial ability to supply the wife's necessities. Arendall v. Arendall, 61 Fla. 496, 54 So. 957, Ann.Cas. 1913A, 662, 663. The husband's health was not good and he was physically unable to follow a gainful occupation other than sell newspapers on the streets. It is possible that present conditions may change in the near future as the Chancellor did not commit the appellant for contempt for his failure to pay the sums allowed the wife but simply entered judgments against him. We cannot assume that the Chancellor, in subsequent rulings in this controversy, will rule contrary to the applicable law. Counsel for appellee are allowed counsel fees for this appeal in the sum of $250.

We fail to find error in the record.

Affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 So. 2d 685, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 1241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanter-v-kanter-fla-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack