HOLLON V. HOLLON 784 So.2d 943 (2001) CASE BRIEF

HOLLON V. HOLLON

784 So.2d 943 (2001)

NATURE OF THE CASE: In granting the parties a divorce, the court granted Timothy Hollon (H) custody of their son and reserved visitation rights for Dorothy Hollon (W) and ordered W to pay $200 a month in child support, and allowed H to claim his son as a dependent on his income taxes. W appealed.

FACTS: H and W were married and had a son, Zach. W's child from a previous marriage also lived with the family. Soon after their son's birth, the marriage began to deteriorate. Eventually H moved out of the marital apartment and into his parents' home, leaving Zach and Tyler in W's care. W took in a roommate, Beth Dukes (Dukes). Dukes lived with her son, Seth Holder, a child from her previous marriage. W and Dukes split expenses, such as utilities and groceries. In addition, they each served as a baby sitter for the children when one was otherwise occupied. W and Dukes shared a bedroom. W freely admitted that she and Dukes slept in the same bed. However, she vehemently denied any sexual relationship existed. There was direct testimony to the contrary. H was allegedly concerned and borrowed a key to the apartment, and when W and Dukes were away, H and Calvin Hutchins entered the apartment without permission and made a photographic record of things H felt were 'inappropriate.' H took photographs of Dukes' clothing and police equipment in the shared bedroom, beer bottles in the refrigerator and wastebasket, liquor bottles on the counter, and one red light bulb in a ceiling fixture. These photographs were admitted into evidence over W's objection. H and W each testified that the other was a good parent and had only Zach's best interests at heart. H admitted that the only problem he had with W retaining permanent custody of Zach was his belief that she engaged in homosexual activity. W moved out of the apartment complex with her two children and into her parents' five-bedroom house. She initiated this move during the break in the trial because she felt the judge disapproved of her living situation. W no longer lives with Dukes and her son, although they remain friends. W appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner