SHIRLEY L. TAXAY, APPELLANT,
v.
EMIL P. TAXAY, 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 Florida divorce appeal, the wife challenged the trial court's grant of divorce to the husband despite his admission of adultery, and the trial court's denial of certain monetary relief. The appellate court affirmed the divorce decree but modified it to require the husband to pay for health insurance, summer camp expenses, and air conditioning repairs.
The court affirmed the divorce decree as sufficient competent and substantial evidence supported it and the trial judge did not abuse discretion in determining the equities. However, the court modified the decree to require the husband to continue paying health and accident insurance premiums for the wife and daughter, pay reasonable and necessary summer camp expenses for the minor daughter, and reimburse the wife $1,000 for air conditioning repairs to the marital home.
[1] Sufficient, competent, and substantial evidence, adequately corroborated, supports a trial court's rendition of a final decree of divorce.
[2] A trial judge does not abuse judicial discretion in determining the equities between parties in a divorce action, even when one party admits to adultery.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record contains sufficient, competent and substantial evidence, adequately corroborated, to uphold the rendition of a final decree of divorce for the plaintiff husband by the trial court.”
Establishes the legal standard for affirming a divorce decree and shows the appellate court's deference to trial court findings on divorce grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShirley L. Taxay sued Emil P. Taxay for separate maintenance. The husband denied the allegations and counterclaimed for divorce. The trial court grant…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
The wife, Shirley L. Taxay, sued Emil P. Taxay for separate maintenance. His answer denied the allegations of her complaint and contained a counterclaim for divorce. A final judgment was rendered which granted a divorce to the husband and' awarded certain monetary relief. The wife appeals from that final judgment.
The record contains sufficient, competent and substantial evidence, adequately *617corroborated, to uphold the rendition of a final decree of divorce for the plaintiff husband by the trial court. See Chesnut v. Chesnut, 160 Fla. 83, 33 So.2d 730 (1948); Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260, 193 So. 65 (1940); and Hillyard v. Hillyard, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 306.
The wife contends that the trial court erred in granting the husband a divorce in view of his admission below that he had committed adultery. We have reviewed the record and do not find that the trial judge abused his judicial discretion in determining the equities between these parties. See Stewart v. Stewart, 158 Fla. 326, 29 So.2d 247 (1947), 170 A.L.R. 1073; and Benson v. Benson, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 748.
The trial court did err in not requiring the husband to continue to pay the premiums on a health and accident insurance policy which he maintained on his wife and minor daughter during the marriage. There was an abuse of judicial discretion, on the evidence in this record, in not requiring him to continue to pay for the policy in the future. Error was also committed in not requiring the husband to pay the expenses for a summer camp for his daughter and a $1,000 air conditioning bill which the wife had incurred for air conditioning of the marital home which she occupied after the husband had left. We find no assignment of error directed to the failure of the trial court to require the husband to pay the future dental care of their minor daughter.
The final decree of divorce is affirmed but is amended and modified to require the husband to pay premiums on the health and accident policy for the wife and daughter; to pay reasonable and necessary expenses for summer camp for his minor daughter and to pay or reimburse the wife for the repair of the air conditioning unit in the marital home in the amount of $1,-000.
The final judgment is accordingly
Affirmed in part and modified in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1940)
- Benson v. Benson, 102 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 158 Fla. 326 (Fla. 1946)
- Chesnut v. Chesnut, 160 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1948)
- Leatha M. Freeman v. Vocelle, 160 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1948)
- Elisabeth P. Hillyard v. Hillyard, 212 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Lakeland v. Gulf Asphalt Corp., 212 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)