JOHN L. ROUSE, APPELLANT,
v.
GWENDOLINE B. ROUSE, 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.
A husband appeals from a trial court decree awarding alimony and child support to his wife unconnected with divorce. The trial court rejected the parties' separation agreement, finding the husband failed to disclose his assets and that the agreed payments were inequitable, and instead set higher monthly payments. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that the trial court properly rejected the agreement.
The trial court did not err in any respect. The separation agreements were properly rejected based on the husband's failure to disclose assets and the inequitable nature of the payments. The wife was properly permitted to amend her complaint since the cause of action and proofs required for both forms of relief were identical. The alimony and child support awards were within the trial court's sound discretion and did not constitute abuse of discretion.
“The court held the agreements were invalid, and unenforceable against the wife, on finding the husband had not made proper disclosure of his assets and that in view of his financial status the alimony and child support payments provided for in the agreements were inequitable and inadequate.”
Establishes the trial court's grounds for rejecting the separation agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband and wife initially litigated divorce claims based on mutual allegations of extreme cruelty. During the suit, they executed a separation ag…
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 Counterclaim For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
This is is an appeal by a husband (defendant below) from a decree for alimony unconnected with divorce. Initially the plaintiff wife filed suit for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The defendant answered and counterclaimed for divorce, charging extreme cruelty. Subsequently plaintiff amended her prayer from one seeking divorce to one for alimony unconnected with divorce (based on the charge of extreme cruelty) under § 65.09 (now § 61.09) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
During the pendency of the suit the parties entered into a separation agreement, which provided, among other things, for $280 per month alimony and $70 per month for support of the minor child of the parties, with the wife to have custody of the child subject to visitation rights of the husband. Also the agreement set up a trust for the child’s education. By an amended agreement the monthly payments were revised to $250 alimony and $100 child support.
The trial court denied the husband’s counterclaim for divorce, and granted the wife’s prayer for alimony unconnected with divorce. The court held the agreements were invalid, and unenforceable against the wife, on finding the husband had not made proper disclosure of his assets and that in view of his financial status the alimony and child support payments provided for in the agreements were inequitable and inadequate. The decree, and an amendment thereto, directed the husband to pay to the wife $400 per month alimony and $200 per month child support, plus their medical and dental expenses.
The several contentions presented by the appellant have been considered in the light of the record and briefs and are found to be without merit. The findings of the trial judge relating to the agreements are supported by the evidence, and his consequent rejection of the separation agreements based on those findings was proper under Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla. 1962, 143 So.2d 17. No error was committed by the trial court in permitting the plaintiff to amend to seek alimony without *652divorce rather than a divorce. The cause of action (extreme cruelty) and the proofs required to establish either of those forms of relief were the same. The matter of allowances of alimony and child support was within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and on the record presented it has not been demonstrated that the allowances as made represented an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rouse v. Gwendoline B. Rouse, 313 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…orted by the record and were the product of passion and prejudice. We find this point devoid of merit. The trial judge was not unfamiliar with the history of this case. See, Rouse v. Rouse, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 77; Rouse v. Rouse, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 650. It is our impression that the trial court was in a better position to formulate the several judgments which he made about the parties including the financial needs of the appellee, the appellant’s ability to pay, and the credibility of the respect…
Authorities Cited
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962)