Motley v. Motley

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.</p> <p>Statement.</p> <p>On December 21st, 1908, John M. Prall brought in the circuit court for Hillsborough county, Florida, a suit in equity for a divorce from his wife Emma L. Prall. In the amended bill of complaint it is alleged that the couple were married April 3, 1895, at Fort Dodge, Iowa; that they lived together in Iowa and two children were born to them; that during their married life till he finally separated from her, the complainant was a faithful and devoted husband; that during their residence in Iowa the wife became enamored with a strange religious sect and a devotee at its altar; * * * that from the time of her conversion to the belief of this sect the defendant began to be estranged from the complainant because of his inability to join her in the adoption of the tenets of this religion;” that to please her he moved to Estero in Lee county, Florida, where the sect was established; that the wife “further yielding to the doctrine of this sect, which holds as one of its beliefs that the members of the sect or union are married in Christ and are not properly married to any one, withdrew herself from all marital relations with complainant, abjuring him in every way and telling him that his approaches were obnoxious to her; that she refused to * * * allow complainant the privileges of a husband; that during this time the respondent became more and more undutiful in her relations towards complainant, being enraged with complainant on account of his refusal to submit all of their property to be community property with the said religious society as aforesaid; thaf^lie constantly chided him upon his sinfulness and sought to estrange his children from him. Moreover complainant says that respondent ceased in every way to render services to him as a wife, and instead of extending to him courtesy and respect due a husband, maligned him and abused him in t

<p>APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge.</p> <p>Action for divorce. Judgment for defendant.</p> <p>■ “The findings of fact must support the judgment, and if not, the judgment must be reversed.” (Ponting v. Isaman, 7 Ida. 581, 65 Pac. 434.) .</p> <p>“There is not a substantial conflict in the evidence such as to bring it within the rule that where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence, the finding of the court will not be disturbed.” (Wood v. Broderson, 12 Ida. 190, 85 Pac. 490.)</p> <p>“In equity cases the appellate court will examine the evidence with a view to sustain the trial court in its findings and judgment, but will reverse the judgment if the evidence, is insufficient to sustain it.” {Small v. Harrington, 10 Ida. 499, 79 Pac. 461.1</p> <p>\Where there is substantial conflict in the evidence on which any finding of fact is based

Divorce; Evid.R. 611; expert witness; expert report; separate property; financial tracing; division of property; motion to show cause; contempt; financial misconduct; distributive award; child tax exemption; temporary support; time limitations; due process; attorney fees; abuse of discretion; custody determination; best interest of the children; marital debts; imputed income. Our standard of reviewing decisions of a domestic relations court is generally the abuse-of-discretion standard. Upon review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence from an expert witness related to the financial tracing of various claim separate property. The court did not abuse its discretion in its division of marital property and separate property, or in its allocation of marital debts and liabilities. Plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to a distributive award where defendant-appellee did not commit financial misconduct. The allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and the order to alternate the child tax exemption was not an abuse of discretion. Finally, the trial court did not err in imputing income to defendant-appellee.

<p>Appeal, No. 191, April T., 1913, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1912, dismissing libel for divorce in case of Elmer P. Yost v. Ada A. Yost.</p> <p>Libel for divorce.</p> <p>Brown, J., filed the following opinion:</p> <p>1. The libel filed by libelant against respondent alleges that the said Ada A. Yost hath at divers times since the date of her marriage with your petitioner, had sexual intercourse with divers persons other than your petitioner and hath, at divers times since the time of her said marriage, committed the crime of adultery.</p> <p>2. The answer filed by respondent denies the charge, and avers that libelant has committed adultery both before and since his desertion of respondent.</p> <p>3. Libelant’s bill of particulars alleges the respondent, Ada A. Yost, committed adultery and had sexual intercourse with one, Carlton C. Anthony, commonly known by her as Dr. Anthony, at divers times, particularly beginning on or about April 20, 1912, and continuing once and twice a week for about three months immediately following thereafter, and at divers places, particularly at the respondent’s rooms at No. 501 Collins avenue, city of Pittsburg.</p> <p>And further committed adultery and had sexual intercourse with one. Raimer, or some person having a name of like sounding, and spoken of by the said respondent as “Ernest.” The said respondent, Ada A. Yost, committed adultery with the said Reymer at her rooms as above mentioned, several times a week before and after June 23, 1912, and on said last-mentioned day.</p> <p>And further committed adultery and had sexual intercourse with a person known as Paul Hughes at divers times at the rooms of the respondent as aforesaid, beginning contemporaneous with the time mentioned in connection Avith the said Carlton C. Anthony, that is to say, from April 20, 1912, until about August 1, 1912.</p> <p>And further committed adultery and had sexual intercourse with divers other persons, the time and plac