From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carrigan v. Carrigan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 12, 1973
283 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 73-379.

October 12, 1973.

Appeal from the Orange County Circuit Court, Parker Lee McDonald, J.

Edward J. Hanlon and William B. Barnett of Hanlon Barnett, Orlando, for appellant.

Ronald P. Teevan, of Robertson, Williams Duane, Orlando, for appellee.


This is an appeal from an order denying the husband's petition for dissolution. Although the husband's petition for dissolution asserted that the marriage was irretrievably broken and the wife's answer admitted that the marriage was irretrievably broken, the trial court continued the matter in an effort to effect a reconciliation of the parties. To the extent that the trial judge sought to effectuate a reconciliation his action is commendable, however, the pleadings and evidence demonstrate that the marriage "in fact ended because of the basic unsuitability of the spouses for each other and their state of mind towards their relationship". Riley v. Riley, Fla.App. 1972, 271 So.2d 181; F.S. section 61.052(2)(a), F.S.A. The trial judge therefore erred in denying the petition for dissolution of marriage.

Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded with directions to enter an order granting dissolution of the marriage of the parties.

OWEN, C.J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carrigan v. Carrigan

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 12, 1973
283 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

Carrigan v. Carrigan

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. CARRIGAN, SR., APPELLANT, v. LOUISE E. CARRIGAN, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 12, 1973

Citations

283 So. 2d 574 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Citing Cases

Nelms v. Nelms

It seems clear now that failure to contest the allegation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, or a…