Opinion
March 7, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Marshall C. Wiseheart, J.
W.C. Kemp, Miami, for appellant.
Vernon W. Turner, Homestead, for appellee.
This is a divorce action where the ground for divorce was extreme cruelty, and it also involved the question of alimony and the division of monies contained in a joint bank account.
The cause was referred to a Master and he took practically 300 pages of testimony. The report filed by the Master shows that he thoroughly reviewed and studied the testimony offered by the parties and as a result thereof, he made definite findings of fact and came to definite conclusions of the law which he reported to the Court.
The Master found that the marriage was of short duration, and that the appellant here, defendant in the Court below, was guilty of extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff below, appellee here; that the appellant was entitled to no alimony and to none of the money which at one time was in a joint bank account.
On the question of extreme cruelty, the appellant claims that all of the evidence with reference to the charge was given by the appellee and was not supported or corroborated by any other testimony. This contention is not borne out by the record. There was sufficient supporting and corroborating testimony to that given by the appellee.
With reference to alimony, it appears from the record that the parties lived together between 8 and 9 months; the appellee owned an orange grove worth between fifty and seventy-five thousand dollars at the time of the marriage; the wife contributed absolutely nothing toward the acquisition of this orange grove; the wife is an able-bodied woman, capable of earning her own living; prior to her marriage she had experience in operating her own grove, in buying and selling real estate, dealing in restaurants and other businesses; she owned a half interest in a $40,000 mortgage; she was 20 years younger than the husband and was enjoying good health; the husband's health was not good. Based upon these and other facts, the Master found that the wife was not entitled to any alimony. In his finding of facts as reported to the Court, among other things the Master stated:
"Defendant in reply to Plaintiff's accusation that she was clad in a towel stated that it was a `beautiful bath towel' (Tr. 321). Although the Master is of the opinion that Plaintiff may have condoned Defendant's action with regards to the bath towel incident, this conduct by the Defendant plus all of her other actions throughout the eight (8) months that the parties lived together, establishes a definite pattern of conduct that a `prudent' woman would not have attempted. As a matter of fact, the admitted testimony of the Defendant alone, shows that she and the ex-husband, Weihermueller, must have planned the entire procedure of having her divorce him and marry Plaintiff, thinking that it would be possible for her to persuade the Plaintiff to sell his grove and convert same into cash. Her very actions speak for themselves. If she didn't hesitate to parade in front of her ex-husband, her bridegroom to be, and his daughter, clad only in `a beautiful bath towel', she certainly wouldn't hesitate to display her person in front of her ex-husband at Plaintiff's home, especially when she placed her ex-husband in the bedroom immediately adjoining her own, so that she could torment Plaintiff into thinking the worst. The Master realizes that some marriages can exist even though there is a twenty (20) year difference in their ages, but, not this one, because Defendant's conduct shows that it was destined to end as soon as it suited the purpose of the ex-husband and the Defendant.
"The ex-husband Weihermueller's coming to live at the home of the Plaintiff, is like the story of `The Man Who Came to Dinner'; he stayed and stayed, while his ex-wife attempted to convince Plaintiff to buy a business because of his age, and to convince Plaintiff's children that Plaintiff should sell the grove.
"Here we have a man sixty-six (66) years of age, a widower for nine years, suffering from nervousness and chronic prostatic trouble, married to the Defendant, a thrice married woman, forty-six (46) years of age, who apparently is in the best of health, and who forbade her husband to come to her room, but went to his when it became necessary, and thereafter returned to her bedroom, closed the door, and let the Plaintiff suffer the tortures of the damned in not knowing what went on in her bedroom, yet knowing that her ex-husband occupied the room that rightfully should have been his; that there was no lock on the door, so that even if the buffet were placed against the door during the daytime it could be pushed aside. This, in my opinion, is the worst form of extreme cruelty that could have been practiced upon the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
"* * * The bank account opened by the Plaintiff in their joint names shortly after the marriage was not a gift and Defendant has at no time ever exercised any control over it, according to her own testimony. Therefore, she has no interest in these monies."
The Special Master recommended that an absolute divorce be granted to the husband, that alimony be denied to the wife, and that she be denied any interest in the joint bank account.
There was ample evidence to support each finding of fact and recommendation of the Master.
Based upon the report and recommendations of the Master, the Circuit Judge entered a decree confirming in all respects the report of the Master.
We find no error.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., CHAPMAN, J., and PARKS, Associate Justice, concur.