Case Name: Rose SEIFERTH, Appellant, v. Russell J. SEIFERTH, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1961-08-31
Citations: 132 So. 2d 471
Docket Number: No. 60-557
Parties: Rose SEIFERTH, Appellant, v. Russell J. SEIFERTH, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and CARROLL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 132
Pages: 471–474

Head Matter:
Rose SEIFERTH, Appellant, v. Russell J. SEIFERTH, Appellee.
No. 60-557.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Aug. 31, 1961.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1961.
See also Fla.App., 121 So.2d 689.
Robert E. Rutledge, Jr., So. Miami, for appellant.
W. F. Esslinger, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and CARROLL, JJ.

Opinion:
CARROLL, Judge.
The appellee Russell J. Seiferth filed suit for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty against his wife the appellant Rose Seiferth. She answered, counterclaimed for alimony unconnected with divorce and sought an interest in certain property of the parties and in the husband's, plumbing business. Trial before a master-prompted recommendations which resulted in a final decree granting the husband a. divorce, denying separate maintenance,, awarding the wife alimony of $100 a week,, and a $10,000 equity in the husband's plumbing business, and allowing him the use of' the jointly owned furnished residence until sold. Fees allowed to the wife's attorney and to the master and other costs in the.case were charged against the husband.
On the wife's appeal she contended it-was error to grant the divorce, that she-was not accorded a proper share in the business, and that the court should have dismissed the suit because of resumption of cohabitation between the parties during its pendency.
Regarding the issues relating to the divorce and the wife's equity in the husband's, business, the evidence presented was extensive and was not without conflict. The-fact that we may read the evidence to show a stronger case for the wife and a poorer-case for the husband is no sufficient basis-to disturb the chancellor's decision on those-issues. Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 663. And we hold against the appellant on her contention that the-court was in error in refusing to dismiss the-cause when told that the parties had resumed cohabitation for a period during the-pendency of the suit. The denial of the-motion to dismiss was based on a finding-that the element of forgiveness, essential" for condonation, was "completely lacking-in the resumption of the relationship herein." The resumption of cohabitation, per-se, is not necessax-ily condonation. It may-imply a condoning, but the principal element of the defense of condonation is the- "freely exercised intent to forgive. Fekany v. Fekany, 118 Fla. 698, 160 So. 192; Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So.2d 356; Mickler v. Mickler, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 157; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, Separation and Annulment, § 51. On the record before us the finding on this point is not shown to be clearly wrong.
The cross-assignments filed by the husband on which he contended that the chan•cellor was in error in awarding the alimony, in holding that the wife was entitled to an equity in the business and in charging expenses of the litigation and costs against him, have been examined in the light of the record and of the briefs and are found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., concurs in part and dissents in part