Chaachou v. Chaachou, 31164

• Decision Date: 29 November 1961
• Docket Number: No. 31164,31164
• Citation: 135 So.2d 206
• Parties: Fredericka Phillips CHAACHOU, Appellant, v. Khudourie CHAACHOU; Paris Corp., a Florida corporation; Columbia Corp., a Florida corporation; and The K. Chaachou Foundation, a non-profit Florida corporation, Appellees.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 206

135 So.2d 206

Fredericka Phillips CHAACHOU, Appellant, v. Khudourie CHAACHOU; Paris Corp., a Florida corporation; Columbia Corp., a Florida corporation; and The K. Chaachou Foundation, a non-profit Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 31164.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 29, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1961.

James Pilafian and Brigham, Wright, Goodwin & Dence, Miami, for appellant.

Jackman & Benton and Ephraim Collins, Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal we are confronted with the culmination of one of the most protracted and bitterly contested divorce proceedings in the annals of Florida jurisprudence.

We quote in full the findings of facts, the conclusions of law and the final decree of the chancellor which is under attack herein:

'By her Complaint filed July 11, 1952 alleging a common law marriage with the defendant, Khudourie Chaachou, plaintiff, Fredericka Phillips Chaachou, seeks divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, an award of alimony, suit money, counsel fees, and a decree for special equities in certain properties mentioned in the Complaint, which consists of four Miami Beach hotels and a residence at 5041 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach.

'The defendant, Khudourie Chaachou, and all corporate defendants on August 6, 1952, filed their joint Answer to the Complaint denying generally all its allegations including the alleged marriage, and admitted only that the defendant, Khudourie Chaachou, was born in Bagdad, Iraq, had become a naturalized American citizen, that he was engaged in the wholesale rug business in New York City, and that he was involved in the automobile accident which plaintiff alleged initiated her coming to Miami Beach and becoming both the defendant's wife and his business partner.

'On July 16, 1952, the cause was referred to a Special Master by Division A of this Court, before which this cause was then pending 'for the purpose of taking testimony of the respective parties of this cause upon the issue of temporary alimony, temporary suit money and temporary counsel fees to be awarded to the plaintiff, and for the purpose of filing his recommendations to the Court both on the facts and the law with all convenient speed.' To aid the Master in reaching a conclusion on the purposes for which this cause was then referred to him, the parties produced forty-seven witnesses whose testimony appears on more than 2,000 legal size pages, and submitted to him eight written depositions and over 150 exhibits, more than 100 of which were received in evidence.

'In Chaachou v. Chaachou (Fla.Sup.Ct., Rehearing denied June 21, 1954) 73 So.2d 830, the Supreme Court of Florida found the Master to be in error (as was Division A of this Court confirming his report) when he recommended against the existence of a common law marriage between the parties. The Supreme Court held (73 So.2d 830, at p. 837):

"The summary of the evidence heretofore given as to the actual marriage, the corroborating evidence with reference thereto, cohabitation and repute, shows beyond question, prima facie, a common law marriage, which shifted the burden to the respondent. He has not met the burden placed upon him by law.'

'On September 17, 1956, by order of the Senior Circuit Court Judge, this cause was transferred (due to the illness of the Judge presiding over Division A) to Division K (now Division H) 'for permanent and final disposition.' Accordingly, the Judge of this Division of the Court has since such time been the Chancellor in this cause.

'Pursuant to the Mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida in Chaachou v. Chaachou (Rehearing denied February 19, 1957) 92 So.2d 414, directing that the parties be permitted to take further testimony on the issue of common law marriage, this Court entered its Order entitled 'Order Conclusively Establishing Existence of Common Law Marriage Between Parties' on the 17th day of July, 1957. This order was entered after this Chancellor had seen and heard thirty witnesses testify (whose testimony covers 1,300 legal size pages), had read five depositions, and had inspected thirty exhibits marked in evidence. Before the entry of this order, this Chancellor had, in order to be familiar with the background of this case prior to its assignment to him, studied the record made before the Master, which was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida in Chaachou v. Chaachou, 73 So.2d 830. The defendant, Khudourie Chaachou, appealed the marriage order to the Supreme Court of Florida, which was affirmed in Chaachou v. Chaachou, 105 So.2d 793 (Rehearing denied October 7, 1958).

'On November 19, 1958, on motion of the plaintiff therefor, an order was entered appointing the Honorable George T. Clark (now Judge of the County Judge's Court of Dade County) Special Master in this case 'to take the evidence and testimony of the parties hereto on those issues of the Complaint of the plaintiff and the Answer of the defendants, which have not heretofore been determined by this Court.' The Master set the cause for final hearing on January 29, 1959, and thereafter there appeared from time to time a number of lawyers before the Court representing the defendant, Khudourie Chaachou, asking for a continuance of the Master's hearing that they might become familiar with the case in order to try it for the defendant. Repeated continuances were granted to accommodate the defendant, Khudourie Chaachou, and his lawyers from time to time. The last one so requesting a continuance (which was granted) was Mr. John E. McCarey, and he agreed to try the case before the Master on June 8, 1959, and to continue the trial without interruption until it was completed, and an order to that effect was entered.

'On June 1, 1959, additional new counsel for the defendants appeared before the Court and tendered an amendment by way of counterclaim to the defendants' Answer, which had been on file since August 14, 1952, and asked leave by their motion to file the same. This counterclaim charged the plaintiff with adultery and claimed that by virtue thereof she should not be granted any relief under her Complaint. No excuse was alleged for the delay of almost seven years in attempting to amend the Answer; and since it was apparent from the record of this cause that, if there was any foundation for the charge, it was known to the defendant as early as 1951, this Chancellor felt that the Motion for leave to amend the Answer by filing the counterclaim was not legally sufficient and entered an order denying the same.

'Upon appeal, Chaachou v. Chaachou (D.C.A. 3d Dist., Rehearing denied March 8, 1960) 118 So.2d 73, the Order of this Chancellor was reversed with directions to permit the counterclaim to be filed. Thereafter, upon plaintiff's motion that the Mandate of the Appellate Court be placed in effect, and that the cause be set for final hearing, it was ordered that the counterclaim be filed and that the cause be set for final hearing before this Chancellor on August 29, 30 and 31, 1960, Judge Clark having meanwhile been appointed to the bench.

'At the final hearing beginning on August 29, 1960, this Chancellor saw and heard the testimony of twenty witnesses, whose testimony covers 861 legal size pages; and in addition received and read nineteen exhibits, one of which (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3-8) consisted of twenty-one letters, all except two being written by the defendant, Khudourie Chaachou, to plaintiff's counsel. At the conclusion of the final hearing the parties filed extensive briefs advocating their positions. Midway during the final hearing of this cause Mr. John Carruthers II, who filed defendants' counterclaim of adultery, and who had represented the defendants in the last appellate proceeding in this cause, asked leave to be relieved of his representation, which was granted.

'During the course of this litigation, including interlocutory and final hearing, this Chancellor has seen and heard a total of forty-nine witnesses, whose testimony covers 3,161 legal size pages, and has received in evidence and read fifty exhibits, including five depositions. In order to properly evaluate the equities of this cause, the record made before the Master on the original reference, which record was initially before the Supreme Court of Florida in Chaachou v. Chaachou (Rehearing denied June 24, 1954) 73 So.2d 830, has been reviewed. This record consists of an excess of 2,000 pages of testimony, 100 filed exhibits, and eight depositions.

'From this massive record it appears, and is so found, that the equities of this cause are with the plaintiff, and she is entitled to the relief prayed for in her Complaint.

'Plaintiff bases her claim for divorce on the ground of the defendant Chaachou's extreme cruelty, and there is ample evidence to sustain this ground. The plaintiff and the defendant Chaachou are both naturalized citizens, becoming such in 1950 and 1942 respectively. The plaintiff was born in Turkey of Armenian parents, and the defendant Chaachou was born in Bagdad, Iraq, of Jewish parents. The early history of their business acquaintanceship is recorded in Chaachou v. Chaachou, 73 So.2d 830, 832. It is apparent that plaintiff came to Miami Beach from Atlanta at defendant Chaachou's request in the Fall of 1942, and assumed the management of the Savoy Plaza Hotel which he had recently purchased for $165,000.00. Defendant Chaachou owned the Imperial Persian and Chinese Rug Company of New York City, which his counsel represented to the Court in this cause on September 12, 1952, was 'probably the largest rug importing business in the United States.' On plaintiff's advice, after she began operating the Savoy Plaza Hotel, defendant Chaachou bought the Coral Reef, the Somerset, and the Astor hotels, also located in Miami Beach. Shortly after their purchase, these hotels were released by the military forces, which had been occupying them during the war, and the plaintiff took over their active management and operation...