Jordan v. Jordan
| Citation | 89 So.2d 22 |
| Parties | Ethel JORDAN, Appellant, v. Bill JORDAN, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 25 July 1956 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Edward L. Lustgarten, Miami, for appellant.
Irving Cypen and Michael H. Salmon, Miami Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final summary decree entered by the lower court in favor of the defendant-appellee in a divorce action instituted by appellant.
The alleged wife's complaint claims that the parties are husband and wife because of a common-law marriage, which it is alleged was consummated in July 1953. The wife charges her alleged common-law husband with extreme cruelty and seeks alimony and attorney's fees.
The Chancellor correctly granted the defendant-husband's motion to sever the dissue of the existence or non-existence of the marriage relationship. A summary final decree was entered thereon finding that no common-law marriage existed.
The parties entered into a relationship in 1949 which was admittedly illicit or meretricious. This relationship continued for several years although there were several interruptions. One such interruption was caused by the marriage of appellant to a third party and her subsequent divorce from him.
The appellant, through most of the period of the acquaintanceship of the parties, worked as a 'disc jockey' in the night club operated by the appellee. She used the name Ethel Davis.
The appellant contends that an agreement to enter into a common-law marriage was accomplished in July 1953. However, appellant admits no significant change in the relationship of the parties occurred; they simply continued as before. Appellant did not change her bank account, driver's license, Social Security card or other documents to reflect the alleged marital status. The parties acquired no joint property. In 1953 she did not join in her alleged husband's income tax return but allowed her mother to claim her as a dependent.
It further appears that appellant spent her own money on necessities before and after the alleged marriage. She was not generally publicly referred to or introduced as the wife of the appellee.
The parties apparently broke off all relations in May 1954, and the complaint was filed the August following.
The fundamental element of the common-law marriage is the agreement of the parties. This agreement must be actual and mutual, and must be consummated. Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76, 24 L.Ed. 826.
When a marriage is alleged to have been consummated, but there are no witnesses to the claimed agreement, proof of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chivers v. Couch Motor Lines, Inc.
...the party relying upon the common-law marriage has the burden of showing the change in the relationship from concubinage. Jordan v. Jordan, Fla., 89 So.2d 22 (1956); McClish v. Rankin, 153 Fla. 324, 14 So.2d 714 (1943). There is no serious issue as to this in the present case, as the testim......
-
Sikes v. Guest
...show mutual consent or words of assent per verba de praesenti. In re Price's Estate, 1937, 129 Fla.App., 467, 176 So. 492; Jordan v. Jordan, Fla.App.,1956, 89 So.2d 22. Compare Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla.App.,1954, 73 So.2d 830, 835, 839. The latter case recognizes that where a party to an a......
-
Trigg's Estate, In re
...common-law marriages. See In re Colson's Estate, Fla., 72 So.2d 57 (1954); Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla., 73 So.2d 830 (1954); Jordan v. Jordan, Fla., 89 So.2d 22 (1956). The court in its findings found that a marriage ceremony took place and that it was performed by a person and in a church. ......
-
Alcala's Estate, In re
...of marriage when the agreement is denied and cannot be proven by the best evidence. 18 R.C.L. 428 and 429.' See also: Jordan v. Jordan, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 22; Lambrose v. Topham, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 557; In Re Thompson's Estate, 1940, 145 Fla. 42, 199 So. 352; Edge v. Rynearson, 1932, 107 Fl......