PETER CALVERT
v.
TRESA CALVERT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal of a divorce bill, finding that the bill, while general, contained sufficient allegations to require an answer and was not devoid of equity.
No, the amended bill for divorce was not devoid of equity and should not have been dismissed. It contained sufficient allegations to require an answer from the defendant.
“the amended bill of complaint is devoid of substantial allegations as to who, when, where, what and how, concerning the general allegations of misconduct charged to the defendant and the said amended bill of complaint is too loose, vague, uncertain, indistinct, ambiguous, and generally drawn to take evidence thereon.”
This quote states the lower court's reasoning for dismissing the amended bill of complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed an amended bill for divorce, which the lower court dismissed, finding it too vague and lacking specific details regarding the alle…
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 Pleading Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
An appeal is prosecuted from a decree dismissing an amended bill for divorce. The decree recites that:
. . the amended bill of complaint is devoid of substantial allegations as to who, when, where, what and how, concerning the general allegations of misconduct charged to the defendant and the said amended bill of complaint is too loose, *117vague, uncertain, indistinct, ambiguous, and generally drawn to take evidence thereon.”
We will not recite the bill at length. It is sufficient to say that it contains a rather full, although general, account of the entire marital history together with elaborate charges of abusive acts of the wife against the husband. It is true that it does not reveal the particular dates and places where the alleged wrongs occurred, nevertheless the charges were made against one who would naturally know as much about them as the plaintiff.
The bill was not devoid of equity and required an answer.
The decree is reversed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.