Perine v. Perine

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perine v. Perine

175 So. 2d 71, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4151

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 1965

DocketNo. 64-830

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 So. 2d 71 (Perine v. Perine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perine v. Perine, 175 So. 2d 71, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4151 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal the appellant, defendant-husband in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final decree entered in a divorce proceeding. The only error preserved for review is the adjudication by the chancellor that certain jointly owned property of the parties and certain “bearer” securities belong to the wife.

The chancellor having found that the appellant at no time contributed any support to the family during the 14 years’ existence of the marriage; having found that the source of monies from which the acquisition of the assets was made possible came solely '.from the separate estate of the wife; we find no error in those features of the final decree here under review. See: Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663;. Allen v. Allen, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 355; McFarland v. McFarland, Fla.App. 1961, 131 So.2d 749; Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 24; Witlin v. Witlin, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 70; 17 Fla.Jur., Husband and Wife, §§ 43, 44, 45.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal the appellant, defendant-husband in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final decree entered in a divorce proceeding. The only error preserved for review is the adjudication by the chancellor that certain jointly owned property of the parties and certain “bearer” securities belong to the wife.

The chancellor having found that the appellant at no time contributed any support to the family during the 14 years’ existence of the marriage; having found that the source of monies from which the acquisition of the assets was made possible came solely '.from the separate estate of the wife; we find no error in those features of the final decree here under review. See: Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663;. Allen v. Allen, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 355; McFarland v. McFarland, Fla.App. 1961, 131 So.2d 749; Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 24; Witlin v. Witlin, Fla.App.1963, 153 So.2d 70; 17 Fla.Jur., Husband and Wife, §§ 43, 44, 45.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 So. 2d 71, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perine-v-perine-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack