BETH MARIE GARLAND
v.
CLAUD GARLAND, JR.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Beth Marie Garland appealed a final divorce decree granted on grounds of extreme cruelty against her husband Claud Garland, Jr. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decree, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish extreme cruelty as a ground for divorce.
The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish extreme cruelty. The court reversed the divorce decree and directed that the bill of complaint be dismissed, finding that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proof.
“We are not ready to say that every man whose wife insists upon controlling the purse strings and who objects to unnecessarily spending money is entitled to a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty.”
Establishes that mere financial disagreements or wife's thriftiness do not constitute extreme cruelty as a basis for divorce.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff-husband filed a bill of complaint alleging that his wife (defendant) was guilty of extreme cruelty. His principal complaints were that s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Extreme Cruelty As Grounds For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal brings for review final decree of divorce.
The bill of complaint charged that the defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty to the plaintiff. The bill of complaint falls short of alleging sufficient facts to show the defendant to have been guilty of extreme cruelty.
Even if the facts alleged in the bill of complaint were sufficient to show that plaintiff had cause to complain of his wife’s conduct, which he complained of principally because of *644her disposition to save money, and not to waste it or throw it away, and that she nagged at him principally because of his indulging in fishing, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish the fact that the wife was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff. There is a complete lack of any corroborating evidence to establish the fact that the wife indulged in nagging, or any other unkind treatment toward the plaintiff.
We are not ready to say that every man whose wife insists upon controlling the purse strings and who objects to unnecessarily spending money is entitled to a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. We have gone a long way in holding that any habitual indulgence by one spouse that causes mental torture undermining the health or tending to dethrone reason of the other is sufficient to constitute extreme cruelty as a ground for divorce. Bergman v. Bergman, 145 Fla. 10, 199 Sou. 920; Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 Sou. 65; Hahn v. Hahn, 153 Fla. 584, 15 Sou. (2) 299.
In this case the evidence meets none of the conditions laid down in those decisions. •
We have held that in order to warrant the granting of a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, the marriage relation must be shown to have been defeated by grave and serious misconduct and this should be established by competent evidence of full and satisfactory nature. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 134 Sou. 201; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 Sou. 105.
The plaintiff not having met the burden required, the decree is reversed with directions' that the bill of complaint be dismissed.
So ordered.
THOMAS, C.J., ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…divorce action, without more, is not sufficient to support a valid decree [*74] of divorce. Dean v. Dean, 1924, 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Morgan v. Morgan, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 778; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268; Garland v. Garland, 1947, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So. 2d 693, and Holmes v. Holmes, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 593. What will amount to a sufficient corroboration of the cause of action must be determined by the circumstances of each case. * . * * ” Martin v. Martin, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So. 2d 837, 839…
-
Martin v. Martin, 102 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…f in a divorce action, without more, is not sufficient to support a valid decree of divorce. Dean v. Dean, 1924, 87 Fla. 242, 99 So. 816; Morgan v. Morgan, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 778; Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268; Garland v. Garland, 1947, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So. 2d 693, and Holmes v. Holmes, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 593. What will amount to a sufficient corroboration of the cause of action must be determined by the circumstances of each case. Martin v. Martin, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 268. However, it is not…
-
Morgan v. Morgan, 40 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1949)…octrine that a divorce will not be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694; Homan v. Homan, 144 Fla. 371, 198 So. 20; Justice v. Justice,148 Fla. 5, 3 So.2d 508; Garland v. Garland, 158 Fla. 643, 29 So.2d 693. Appellee attempts to overcome the uncorroborated testimony rule with what he calls corroborating testimony showing that appellant's nagging made it necessary for him to leave home, that it made such inroads on his health that he lost…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1940)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239 (Fla. 1931)
- Bergman v. Bergman, 145 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1940)
- Powell v. Susanna Powell, 77 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1919)
- Ola B. Hahn v. Hahn, 153 Fla. 584 (Fla. 1943)