Opinion
April 24, 1951.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County, Bryan Simpson, J.
Ragland, Kurz Layton, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Dean Boggs and S. Gordon Blalock, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree of divorce in which the equities were found to be with the wife. The wife was awarded a divorce but denied alimony. The chancellor accepted the findings of the special master except as to alimony. This appeal relates only to the disallowance of alimony plus a reasonable allowance for medical services and an attorney's fee.
The parties were married in 1943 when the husband was a medical student. They took up residence in the wife's apartment for some time and she continued to work while he was in school. In 1946 he graduated, and about two years later came to Florida. After practicing a short while this suit was begun.
The special master found: "The plaintiff, commencing early in the year 1944, embarked upon a course of conduct and committed numerous acts of abusive treatment towards the defendant. Such conduct and acts continued from that time until the time of the separation of the parties. The plaintiff's conduct included the following acts: without provocation, he struck and kicked the defendant in July, 1946, the force of the blow breaking the bridge of defendant's nose in two places, requiring an operation; she continues to suffer from the effects of that blow, and by reason of it requires frequent medical treatment. On the day of their separation, the plaintiff, after asking and receiving the forgiveness of the defendant upon his promise that he would refrain from further mistreatment of her, left their apartment and returned with a woman who stated to the defendant that she was in love with the plaintiff and wished the defendant to give him up; the defendant declined to discuss the matter and the plaintiff left their apartment with the said woman, followed by the defendant; the plaintiff called a taxi cab and when the defendant attempted to enter it the plaintiff pushed her to the ground and drove off with the other woman."
The husband's earnings were in excess of five hundred dollars monthly. The chancellor honored all the master's recommendations except allowance of alimony and in that regard stated: "* * * at the time of the marriage of the parties hereto, each was young and vigorous; that the plaintiff was still attending school and working at part time employment aside from school; that the defendant was gainfully employed at the time of the marriage and continued to work during the greater portion of the parties' married life together; that no estate of any consequence has been created by the efforts of either party; that the parties lived together for little more than four years; that the defendant is still young and attractive and well able to care for herself; that it is contrary to equity and good conscience, under the circumstances of this case, that the plaintiff be required to support the defendant indefinitely."
We cannot agree that alimony should be denied simply because the chancellor is of the opinion that in this case it is inequitable since defendant is young, attractive and able to support herself. Equitable discretion must be exercised in keeping with established principles of law. This husband was found guilty of violating his marital vows. He destroyed his family structure by his own wilful and wrongful act; the law exacts that he now be required to make contribution to rehabilitate, insofar as money will permit, the one he has wronged. An innocent woman's rights are not to be ignored because of her good looks. The general rule is that where the husband has caused the separation he should remain liable for support. We find this case no exception. We, therefore, find the decree in error insofar as alimony is concerned. It is reversed in that regard only.
Having no knowledge of any probable change in the parties' circumstances, we leave the chancellor free to again consider this question and make such award as may seem proper. We grant the petition for attorney's fees and fix same in this Court for prosecuting this appeal at $250.
Reversed.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.