Adair v. Adair

Decision Date20 April 1965
Docket NumberNo. 22927,22927
Citation220 Ga. 852,142 S.E.2d 251
PartiesLucienne Arnoult ADAIR v. Hoyt ADAIR.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. The extremely confidential relationship between a husband and wife, and the resulting dominant influence by the husband over his wife, entitles her to accept his word as to what a paper he requests her to sign contains without reading it herself, and upon her discovery that he falsely represented it, and no innocent person is involved, she is entitled to repudiate it and to a judgment decreeing it void.

2. While process and service may be waived before a suit is filed; yet such waiver is limited and restricted to a specific suit then impending, and which is at that time in the minds of both parties. It must be followed within a reasonable time by the filing of the particular suit that was contemplated. And, where, as in this case, the purported waiver is dated March 18, 1955, and the suit is filed March 21, 1964, there was no waiver of service, and the judgment entered therein is void on its face.

This case is in this court on an assignment of error to the sustaining of a general demurrer and dismissal of a petition, as amended, to declare a divorce decree between the parties null and void and for equitable relief pending the outcome of the suit. The suit, in substance, alleges fraud perpetrated on the plaintiff by the defendant in the procurement of her signature to certain documents attached to his petition settling all questions as to custody and alimony and acknowledging or waiving service, filing, time of filing and process of the divorce action; and alleging that the petition shows on its face that there was no proper acknowledgment of service or waiver of service, and without such service on her the decree is absolutely null and void. The copy of the divorce action attached as an exhibit to this petition shows the date of separation of the parties as January 1, 1964; acknowledgment or waiver of service on March 18, 1955; settlement of alimony and custody on March 18, 1964; and the final decree, based on the acknowledgment or waiver of service and the agreement as to custody and alimony, also incorporated in the decree, on June 5, 1964.

The petitioner alleges further that the petition for divorce was never presented to her, she never received a copy of it, never waived or acknowledged service, time of filing, alimony, attorney's fees or her rights to custody and support, and the facts as stated in the same are false and a fraud perpetrated on the court and this petitioner in order to deprive her of her rights to custody and support. She does allege, however, that on March 18, 1964, she was to leave Georgia for a visit to France, where she was born, raised and married the defendant, for a 90 day visit at the sympathetic suggestion of the defendant to get over the death of her mother who had died while she was living in Georgia with her husband, and she signed a written agreement which defendant stated to her was merely to show that if anything happened to either, the survivor would have exclusive custody of their children, her husband having an honorable position of trust as a State official and relying on her faith in his integrity, her love for him, and believing that he was telling her the truth as to its contents, there being no separation between them and they living in a bona fide state of matrimony at that time.

Robert E. Andrews, Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.

Ellard & Frankum, Stephen D. Frankum, Clarkesville, for defendant in error.

DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice.

1. It not appearing that the wife could not read she will be bound by her signature and charged with knowledge of the content of the papers thus signed, Lewis v. Foy, 189 Ga. 596, 6 S.E.2d 788, unless she be excused for not reading and relying upon the representations of her husband as to the contents thereof. In 26 Am.Juris., p. 876, § 269, it is said: 'It is recognized that the most dominant influence of all relations is that of husband over wife, and transactions between them, to be valid, particularly as to her, must be fair and reasonable * * *' Undoubtedly, the deepest of confidential relationships existed between this husband and wife. He knew that she being rearded in France must have been unfamiliar with the laws of Georgia. This is demonstrated by her fears that in the event of his death, his parents, who allegedly disliked her, would take her children from her when the law of Georgia would forbid such. Was the paper renouncing her rights to alimony, and voluntarily surrendering custody of their two children, all without the slightest consideration to her, fair and reasonable? Had she been fully aware of what she was doing it would have reflected poorly upon him to have thus profited by the magnanimity of a wife whom he at the time intended to divorce and turn out in a strange country without support. But it would be unreasonable to believe that knowing he intended to divorce her and knowing her legal right to seek...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Gibson v. Gibson, S17F0593
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2017
    ..., 299 Ga. 703, 705, 791 S.E.2d 816 (2016) ; Beller v. Tilbrook , 275 Ga. 762, 762-763 (3), 571 S.E.2d 735 (2002) ; Adair v. Adair , 220 Ga. 852, 855 (1), 142 S.E.2d 251 (1965). In finding that there is generally a confidential relationship between spouses, we have relied in part on OCGA § 2......
  • Bohn v. Bohn
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1970
    ...been applied to the husband-wife relationship in many jurisdictions. Beals v. Ares, 25 N.M. 459, 185 P. 780 (1919); Adair v. Adair, 220 Ga. 852, 142 S.E.2d 251 (1965); Sande v. Sande, 83 Idaho 233, 360 P.2d 998 (1961); Matt v. Matt, 115 Colo. 589, 178 P.2d 419 (1947); Peyton v. William C. P......
  • Wheeless v. Gelzer, 1:89-cv-2177-RHH.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 16, 1991
    ...Corp. v. Dilkes (in re Analytical Systems, Inc.), 113 B.R. 91, 93-94 (N.D.Ga.1990), aff'g 97 B.R. 676 (N.D.Ga.1988); Adair v. Adair, 220 Ga. 852, 142 S.E.2d 251 (1965); Sumner v. Sumner, 121 Ga. 1, 6, 48 S.E. 727 64. In addition, Georgia law provides that the agency relationship created by ......
  • Johnson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • August 12, 2011
    ...v. Myers, 303 Ill. 562, 136 N.E. 467 (1922). FN12. Shields v. Shields, 387 S.W.2d 242, 245–46 (Mo.App.1965). FN13. Adair v. Adair, 220 Ga. 852, 856, 142 S.E.2d 251, 254 (1965). See, also, Russell v. Russell, 257 Ga. 177, 356 S.E.2d 884 (1987). 14. See, Drinkwater v. Drinkwater, 111 F.Supp. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT