Matthews v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 31 May 1962
• Docket Number: No. C-442,C-442
• Parties: Mary Mattie MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. Cossie S. MATTHEWS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 799

141 So.2d 799

96 A.L.R.2d 1231

Mary Mattie MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. Cossie S. MATTHEWS, Appellee.

No. C-442.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 31, 1962.

William D. Barrow, Crestview, for appellant.

Adams & Henderson, Crestview, for appellee.

RAWLS, Judge.

Appellant wife has appealed from a final decree of divorce entered in favor of the appellee husband and seeks reversal on jurisdictional grounds. She further contends that the decree is not supported by the evidence.

We are basically concerned with the jurisdictional question. The husband was adjudicated a mental incompetent in the State of Virginia in 1955. He 'walked out' of the state hospital in 1956 and came to Okaloosa County, Florida, where he has since resided. On August 6, 1960, the County Judge of Okaloosa County entered an order adjudging him to be of sound mind and capable of managing his own affairs. On August 10, 1960, the husband filed his complaint in the instant cause which was attacked by the wife through a motion to dismiss asserting that the court was without jurisdiction to try the cause on the grounds that the husband, having been duly adjudicated an incompetent while a resident of the State of Virginia and not having had competency restored until August 6, 1960, was mentally incapable of changing his domicil; and, therefore, he was not a bona fide resident of the State of Florida as required by law.

The factual background of the marital enterprise is important. Cossie and Mattie Matthews were married in 1924. Their marriage survived many disputes until a final battle on June 15, 1953, culminating in the wife's statement: 'I told him if he didn't like the way we was living he might as well get his things and move so when I came that afternoon he had moved.' The husband moved out of their dwelling into a new garage that he had built and continued to live there until his adjudication of incompetency in 1955. They engaged in arguments over real estate that had been accumulated in their joint names, and on July 23, 1953, the husband and wife went to an attorney's office at which time the husband signed instruments conveying to her his interest in the property and agreeing to pay $15.00 per week for the support of their minor child. A few days later the husband filed suit in the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton, Virginia, to set aside the conveyance of his interest in the property on the grounds of coercion, persuasion, threats and fraud on the part of the wife and their daughter, and on the further ground that the husband was not mentally responsible at the time of the execution of the instruments.

On September 28, 1955, in an order concluding that the contract and deeds should be set aside, the Virginia Circuit Court made extensive findings of fact, reciting therein several examinations of Cossie by various psychiatrists who testified that he was psychotic on July 23, 1953; that he had for some years suffered hallucinations, delusions of persecutions by his wife and had all the symptoms of an insane person; that there was no reason at that time to institutionalize Cossie but if his problems continued, commitment proceedings should be carried out. Mattie filed a petition for commitment of Cossie on December 5, 1955, and on December 8, 1955, he was adjudicated to be mentally ill by a Virginia Court of competent jurisdiction and committed to the Eastern State Hospital at Williamsburg, Virginia. On December 30, 1955, Mattie was appointed committee to the estate of Cossie. ¹ In January of 1956 Cossie 'walked out' of the State Hospital at Williamsburg and came to Florida where he has since continuously resided.

Mattie testified that she came to Florida in July of 1958, and told Cossie on that occasion that if 'he would sign his right of way to her property, that she would sign for him to sell his [property] and he could go to where he wanted to.' Cossie's testimony reflects a good memory of dates, happening of events, and his ability to take care of and provide for himself. A witness in his behalf testified that she had lived across the highway from Cossie for about two years, saw him every day, knew that he had lived in the State of Florida for 3 1/2 years (since 1958), and knew he lived in a back room of Aunt Simey's house (an almost helpless 83 year old woman); that Cossie cooked for and took water to Aunt Simey; and that since she (the witness) had moved to a place 2 1/2 miles from Aunt Simey's, Cossie visited 'us' about once a week.

Prior to final hearing the Chancellor, upon Mattie's petition, appointed two psychiatrists, William C. Wilhoit, M. D., and Roger Sherman, M. D., to inquire into Cossie's mental capacity and competency. Dr. Wilhoit's findings were:

'Final Impression: Paranoid state.

'Competency: The petient seems to to competent in all respects except as to matters dealing with his wife who is the frontal figure in his paranoid system.

'Comment: I feel that the patient is capable of managing his affairs except in a union with his wife. Furthermore, I feel that if he formed a partnership or if he were allowed to have a divorce and if he married again, he might encounter the same sort of difficulties with another partner or wife. I furthermore think that nothing would be gained by committing this man to a state hospital as long as he is able to make a satisfactory ambulatory adjustment outside of state hospital walls.'

Dr. Sherman's findings were:

'On examination Mr. Matthews is seen as an elderly, co-operative man who appears, on superficial examination, to be in good contact. I found no defect in his memory or intelligence level. He does not suffer from a mood disorder. In my opinion, however, his thinking is quite distorted in connection with his wife. Although I do not have any source of information other than the patient it seems clear that he has abundant paranoid ideas about his wife. I believe that a diagnosis of paranoid state is appropriate. If it be true that he has had paranoid ideas since 1936 it may be that a diagnosis of paranoid type of schizophrenia might be applicable.

'So nearly as I can ascertain Mr. Matthews has made a satisfactory social adjustment since being in Florida over the course of the past five years. Evidently, he is able to make his own living and has handled his affairs capably enough. The fact is however, that he appears to be quite paranoid in connection with his wife...