Court Opinion

ID: 9826972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:01:21.618242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:20.163115
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing appellee challenges the finding of this court, to the effect that a divorce decree had been entered between Lauderdale and appellee (Lauder-dale’s former wife), and that the deed to the lots in question from Lauderdale to appellee was in part settlement of her rights in their community property. Appellee insists that there cannot be found “a word in the record about divorce or that the appellee received this lot in settlement of her rights in the community property.” In this assertion ap-pellee is mistaken, for the record, not only shows that the lots in question had been the community property of herself and Laud-erdale, but also shows, in the affidavit of Charles T. Paul, introduced in evidence by appellee, that “the plaintiff (appellee) became the owner of said lots in a settlement with her divorced husband, Edward S. Lauder-dale. ⅜ * * ” This evidence clearly warrants the finding in the original opinion, about which appellee complains.
The motion for rehearing and for correction of findings of fact is overruled.