FLOYD M. REYNOLDS, APPELLANT,
v.
HAZELE M. REYNOLDS, APPELLEE
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.
In this 1963 divorce case, Floyd Reynolds appealed a trial court's decision to grant his wife separate maintenance instead of granting him a divorce he sought. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error and rejecting the husband's challenges to the sufficiency of the allegations, the adequacy of proof, and the attorney's fee award.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the counterclaim allegations were not deficient (the issue having never been raised below), that the complete record did not show the separate maintenance award was error, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $5,000 in attorney's fees given the husband's substantial financial resources.
“Although the assertion is made by appellant that the allegations of the counterclaim failed to state a right to relief by appellee, at no time below was any attack made against the counterclaim. The case was heard upon the merits; and this point of deficiency of the counterclaim is raised for the first time on the appeal.”
Establishes that the court will not consider arguments not raised in the trial court, and that failure to object below waives the issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFloyd Reynolds sought a decree of divorce from Hazele Reynolds, who resisted and entered a counterclaim for separate maintenance. The trial court hear…
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 Appellate Review Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Floyd W. Reynolds, the plaintiff husband, sought a decree of divorce from the defendant wife, Hazele M. Reynolds, who resisted and entered a counterclaim for separate maintenance. The court declined to grant a decree of divorce but rendered one for separate maintenance, from which the husband has brought this appeal.
Through his appeal points, appellant complains about the insufficiency of the allegations of the counterclaim, the inadequacy of *189proof to sustain the counterclaim, and the awarding of $5,000 as attorney fee to the wife’s attorney.
Although the assertion is made by appellant that the allegations of the counterclaim failed to state a right to relief by appellee, at no time below was any attack made against the counterclaim. The case was heard upon the merits; and this point of deficiency of the counterclaim is raised for the first time on the appeal. We find no merit to the contention.
As to the failure of proof, there were a number of witnesses who gave testimony bearing upon the issue of whether or not a separate maintenance decree should be awarded to appellee. The chancellor granted his decree based upon the total testimony which he heard. In the appeal record brought here, appellant, through his directions to the court reporter, has limited the testimony to a transcript of that given only by the parties themselves, together with certain evidence relative to attorney’s fee. Since we do not have before us a complete transcript of the testimony upon which the chancellor rendered his decree on the separate maintenance phase, there is no basis upon which this court can say that error was committed by the chancellor. See Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Toffel, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 737; Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 90; Robinson v. Foland, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 512; Broward County Port Authority, etc. v. F. M. Rule & Co., Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 82; Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 226.
As to the amount of attorney’s fee, appellant argues that the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding the sum of $5,000 as allowance for fee to appellee’s attorney. The evidence shows that the husband had and operated two bearing citrus groves representing a total of 180 acres and was the owner and operator of a cattle business, as well as a grove caretak-ing business involving extensive equipment which he had purchased. From the two citrus groves, he received for the year preceding entry of the decree $68,000, in addition to income from other assets. Further, his net worth was approximately $216,000. There appears to this court to have been no abuse of judicial discretion in allowance of the attorney fee in the mentioned sum.
A study of the total record brought here reveals no reversible error.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., KANNER, J., and SMITH, CULVER, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seraydar v. Seraydar, 178 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ecord upon which they were awarded has not been brought before us for review. See: Downing v. Bird, Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 559; Worcester Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Eisenberg, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 575; Reynolds v. Reynolds, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 188; Gleim v. Gleim, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 610 (opinion filed June 29, 1965). Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final decree here under review is hereby affirmed, except as indicated as to the propriety of including as alimony to the wife…
Authorities Cited
- NIX v. Lake W. Koontz, 103 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Broward Cnty. Port Auth. v. F. M. Rule & Co., 119 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Best v. Barnette, 130 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Fund OF the State OF Fla. v. Toffel, 145 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Robinson v. Foland, 124 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- James v. Campbell, 124 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)