Cohen v. Cohen
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | Author: Buford |
| Citation | 158 Fla. 802,30 So.2d 307 |
| Parties | COHEN v. COHEN. |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1947 |
30 So.2d 307
158 Fla. 802
COHEN
v.
COHEN.
Florida Supreme Court
April 29, 1947
[30 So.2d 308]
[158 Fla. 803] Ross & Reinhardt, of Miami, for petitioner.
Silver, Kaplan & Dietz, of Miami, for respondent.
BUFORD, Justice.
On petition for certiorari under Rule 34 we review order denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint and appointing a Special Master for the purpose of taking testimony and reporting the same back to the court with his findings and recommendations.
The motion to dismiss was incorporated in the answer.
The bill of complaint sought a decree in chancery in Florida enforcing the payment of alimony decreed to the plaintiff in a divorce action in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, in the State of Michigan on the 3d day of June, 1938, and under which plaintiff alleges that there was due at the time of the filing of the bill an accumulation of unpaid instalments in the sum of $4,000.
The answer, among other things, avers: 'Further answering the bill of complaint, the defendant denies that the final decree of divorce referred to herein is a final decree or judgment of the State of Michigan insofar as the money provisions therein contained are concerned, but the defendant says that under the laws of the State of Michigan the courts of said state are authorized and empowered to alter decrees for alimony from time to time respecting the amount, and also respecting the appropriation and payment, and that said courts may make any decree respecting any of said matters which such court might have made in the original suit [158 Fla. 804] and by reason thereof said purported final decree entered by the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of Michigan is unenforceable in the State of Florida.'
The bill of complaint does not disclose whether or not under the laws of Michigan the courts of said state are authorized and empowered to alter decrees for alimony from time to time respecting amount, nor whether or not under the laws of the State of Michigan the Circuit Court having jurisdiction of the cause in Michigan can modify or annul a part of the original decree, although the defendant was in default in the payment of the alimony required by the original decree. We are committed to the rule that unless the contrary be shown we will indulge the presumption that there is no law in the state involved giving a court of that state rendering the final decree authority to alter or change that decree as to past...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huggins v. Deinhard, No. 1
...(1910); Desjardins v. Desjardins, 193 F.Supp. 210 (E.D.Ky.1961); Morse v. Morse, 3 Misc.2d 163, 153 N.Y.S.2d 957 (1956); Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307 (1947); Biewend v. Biewend, 17 Cal.2d 108, 109 P.2d 701 (1941); Taylor v. Taylor, 122 Cal.App.3d 209, 175 Cal.Rptr. 716 (1981).......
-
Collins v. Collins
...page 70, Sec. 47; Tuten v. Gazan, 18 Fla. 751; Duke v. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64, 19 So. 172, 31 L.R.A. 484, 53 Am.St.Rep. 232; Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307; Barnes v. Liebig, 146 Fla. 219, 1 So.2d 247 and a host of cases in the interim. We can see no reason at this time to assume th......
-
Edgar v. Edgar, No. 2062
...was rendered is such that the decree can be modified as to the accrued installments. Wolk v. Leak, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 498; Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307; Boyer v. Andrews, 143 Fla. 462, 196 So. 825. The Court pointed out in Wolk v. Leak, supra, in regard to the foreign Page 588......
-
Watson v. Centro Espanol De Tampa
...has jurisdiction. I think the petition for certiorari should be granted in part, and that portion of the challenged order restraining [158 Fla. 802] the County Solicitor of Hillsborough County from prosecuting the respondent should be quashed. I think the petition for certiorari otherwise s......
-
Huggins v. Deinhard, No. 1
...(1910); Desjardins v. Desjardins, 193 F.Supp. 210 (E.D.Ky.1961); Morse v. Morse, 3 Misc.2d 163, 153 N.Y.S.2d 957 (1956); Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307 (1947); Biewend v. Biewend, 17 Cal.2d 108, 109 P.2d 701 (1941); Taylor v. Taylor, 122 Cal.App.3d 209, 175 Cal.Rptr. 716 (1981).......
-
Collins v. Collins
...page 70, Sec. 47; Tuten v. Gazan, 18 Fla. 751; Duke v. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64, 19 So. 172, 31 L.R.A. 484, 53 Am.St.Rep. 232; Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307; Barnes v. Liebig, 146 Fla. 219, 1 So.2d 247 and a host of cases in the interim. We can see no reason at this time to assume th......
-
Edgar v. Edgar, No. 2062
...was rendered is such that the decree can be modified as to the accrued installments. Wolk v. Leak, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 498; Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307; Boyer v. Andrews, 143 Fla. 462, 196 So. 825. The Court pointed out in Wolk v. Leak, supra, in regard to the foreign Page 588......
-
Watson v. Centro Espanol De Tampa
...has jurisdiction. I think the petition for certiorari should be granted in part, and that portion of the challenged order restraining [158 Fla. 802] the County Solicitor of Hillsborough County from prosecuting the respondent should be quashed. I think the petition for certiorari otherwise s......