Johnson v. Lincoln Square Properties, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-03158,89-03158 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 541 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D3002 Robert JOHNSON and Areta Johnson, Appellants, v. LINCOLN SQUARE PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida Corporation and United States of America, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark H. Perenich of Perenich, Carroll, Perenich & Avril, P.A., Clearwater, for appellants.
Bradley J. Goewert and David H. McClain of McClain & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Lincoln Square Properties, Inc.
Appellants, Robert and Areta Johnson, seek reversal of the trial court's final order dismissing Mrs. Johnson's consortium claim in this negligence action. On August 8, 1987, Mr. Johnson sustained an injury while in the course and scope of his employment with appellee, Lincoln Square Properties, Inc. (Lincoln Square). The complaint alleged that Lincoln Square failed to provide workers' compensation coverage in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1987). Mr. Johnson sued for common law compensation as a result of Lincoln Square's negligent failure to provide a safe work place. Mrs. Johnson sought recovery for the loss of her husband's services, companionship and consortium.
At the time of the accident, the Johnsons were residents of Florida, and allegedly living together as husband and wife under the common law of Texas. In 1971, while residents in Texas, the Johnsons agreed to be married, live together and represent to others that they were married. Seven days after the accident, they were married in accordance with Florida law.
Lincoln Square moved to dismiss the consortium claim on the ground that the claim was founded on an out-of-state common law marriage, and Florida does not recognize common law marriages pursuant to section 741.211, Florida Statutes (1987). The trial court agreed and dismissed the consortium claim with prejudice.
1 In the instant case we have an alleged conflict between section 741.211, Florida Statutes (1987), 2 which makes common law marriages in Florida void as of 1968, and section 1.91(a)(2), Texas Family Code Annotated (Vernon 1975), 3 which recognizes the creation of common law marriages in Texas.
Lincoln Square would have us hold that because section 741.211, Florida Statutes, has made common law marriages in the state of Florida void, public policy demands that the validity of the marriage be determined under Florida law. Florida law does not have to give full faith and credit to another state's law when it is repugnant to the interest of Florida.
We, however, do not agree with this reasoning. Florida has traditionally approved of the sanctity of marriage, and the act of marriage, regardless of where it is contracted. The law presumes that a valid marriage exists and the person that challenges the validity of a marriage carries a heavy burden.
The 'presumption' of the existence of a valid marriage, recognized as one of the strongest of all legal presumptions, arises out of the concern of all civilized societies over the legitimacy of children, the descent and distribution of property and the sanctity of marriage as the keystone of Christian governments.
In re Estate of Marden, 355 So.2d 121, 126 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). The recognition of this strong presumption of validity is the antithesis of finding that the act of marriage is repugnant to the interest of Florida. Therefore, public policy arguments are without merit. 4
This case is one of first impression in Florida, since the enactment of section 741.211. However, Florida has always determined the validity of a marriage in accordance with laws of the place where the marriage occurred. See Goldman v. Dithrich, 131 Fla. 408, 179 So. 715 (Fla.1938). In Young v. Viruet de Garcia, 172 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), the court looked to the laws of Puerto Rico to determine the validity of the common law marriage that was asserted. However, because the marriage was invalid under Puerto Rican law Florida refused to recognize it. The court held that the validity of marriage is determined by the law of the state where the contract of marriage occurred. Id. at 244. See also Guelman v. De Guelman, 453 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984) ().
Although there are no Florida decisions which have held that section 741.211 invalidates out-of-state common law marriages, the Attorney General opined that section 741.211 did not change the established principle that the validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where the marriage occurred. 1968 Op.Att'y Gen.Fla. 068-63 (April 22, 1968) (). While we recognize that the Attorney General's opinions are not binding, they are persuasive.
Additionally, other jurisdictions have dealt with this issue. New York no longer recognizes common law marriages, nevertheless, it recognizes the validity of common law marriages contracted in other jurisdictions. See Matter of Will Tabler, 73 A.D.2d 101, 426 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y.App.Div.1980) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mamani v. Berzaín
...Fla. Stat. § 741.211, that limitation does not apply to marriages entered into outside of Florida, see Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc., 571 So.2d 541, 542–43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Moreover, if a foreign state acknowledges a common-law marriage as a marriage under its law, then it may b......
-
Gretna Racing, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation
...of course, have binding effect in court. See Abreau v. Cobb, 670 So.2d 1010, 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ; Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc., 571 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) ; Causeway Lumber Co. v. Lewis, 410 So.2d 511, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)." Edney v. State, 3 So.3d 1281, 1284 (F......
-
Cohen v. Shushan
...approved of the sanctity of marriage, and the act of marriage, regardless of where it is contracted." Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc. , 571 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).3 Thus, "[u]nder principles of comity a marriage by citizens of a foreign country, if valid under foreign law,......
-
Brandon-Thomas v. Brandon-Thomas
...not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy”); Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc., 571 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“Florida law does not have to give full faith and credit to another state's law when it is repugnant to the int......
-
§ 2.03 Establishing a Valid Marriage
...(N.D. Ill. 1988). State Courts: Florida: Compagnoni v. Compagnoni, 591 So.2d 1080 (Fla. App. 1991); Johnson v. Lincoln Square Properties, 571 So.2d 541 (Fla. App. 1990). [84] In re Estate of Duval, 777 N.W.2d 380 (S.D. 2010).[85] See: Ninth Circuit: Orr v. Bowen, 648 F. Supp. 1510 (D. Nev. ......
-
Family law proceedings and grounds
...common law marriages that are entered into in states that do accept common law marriages); Johnson v. Lincoln Square Properties, 571 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (validity of marriage is determined by law of jurisdiction where marriage was entered into).] CASES • McLane v. Musick, 792 So. ......
-
Marriage & Divorce
...14 P.3d at 769 n.6; Griffis v. Griffis, 503 S.E.2d 516, 524 n.14 (W. Va. 1998). 122. Cf . Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc., 571 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing common law marriages from other states was not repugnant to state law and state interests). 123. Se......
-
Marriage and divorce
...14 P.3d at 769 n.6; Griffis v. Griffis, 503 S.E.2d 516, 524 n.14 (W. Va. 1998). 137. Cf . Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc., 571 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing common law marriages from other states was not repugnant to state law and state interests). 138. Se......