McDuffie v. McDuffie
| Citation | 19 So.2d 511,155 Fla. 63 |
| Parties | McDUFFIE v. McDUFFIE. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1944 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
David J Lewis, of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Crawford & May, of Jacksonville, for appellee.
In October, 1937 H. F. McDuffie, the respondent, at that time a citizen of the State of Georgia, filed a bill for divorce against his wife Mrs. H. F. McDuffie, the petitioner, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. In January, 1938, respondent and petitioner entered into an agreement for the support of petitioner and their four minor children. The said agreement was under seal and provided for the payment of $275 per month on January 15, 1938, and for each month thereafter for a specified period, then $285 per month for a specified period and thereafter $200 per month until the death or remarriage of the petitioner.
The agreement further provided that in the event of death or remarriage of petitioner, the sum of $75 per month would be paid for the support of each of the minor children until they reached the age of twenty-one. Additional sums were also agreed to be paid for a diamond ring which respondent secured from petitioner and had not returned. The said sums were in full settlement of temporary and permanent alimony and attorneys' fees. It was also provided that the custody of the children should remain in the petitioner. The said agreement was made the judgment of the court by order dated January 13, 1938.
In February, 1944, petitioner filed her bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, alleging the marriage of petitioner and respondent in Georgia, that there was born to them four children, all of whom were of age except the youngest born June 11, 1924, the institution of the divorce suit in Fulton County, Georgia, the execution of the support agreement and that the final decree of divorce was entered September 29, 1939, wherein the support agreement was made the permanent order of the Superior Court of Fulton County, all of which was made a part of the bill of complaint and marked Exhibit A. The bill also alleges the amounts paid on the agreement up to March 1, 1944, the amounts remaining unpaid and attached an itemized statement thereof marked Exhibit B.
The bill then alleges that petitioner has never remarried and has no income for the support of herself and minor daughter except moneys sent her by her three sons who are of age and in the armed service, that respondent has lately moved to Jacksonville, Florida, and has accepted a position as physician for the St. Johns Shipbuilding Corporation and she is advised that he is being paid a large salary, that he has paid her nothing on the said contract since December, 1943, and that the largest payment he has made since coming to Jacksonville was $79. It is finally alleged that so long as respondent resided in Georgia, she was in position to enforce payment on the contract but that, since coming to Florida, he had no property or assets in Georgia that she could enforce a judgment against. The bill prays that this Court take jurisdiction of the cause and adjudicate the amount due the plaintiff and require defendant to pay her such amounts as may be found to be due her under the agreement and make available to her all other equitable remedies.
In his answer to the bill of complaint respondent admits the execution of the contract and that it became a part of the divorce decree of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. He says however, that the effect of the decree should be construed by the courts of Georgia. He also contends that the amounts stated in the decree are now beyond his ability to pay and are not required by petitioner, that three of the sons were of age and were contributing to her, that petitioner and her children acted in such a way that he was forced to leave Georgia and remove to Florida and that his income in Florida was not such as enabled him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sommer v. Sommer
...by execution at law would amount to depriving a support award of its inherent power of enforcement by contempt. McDuffie [v. McDuffie, 155 Fla. 63], 19 So.2d at 513 [ (1944) ]. The courts have a duty to provide an effective, realistic means for enforcing a support order, or the parent or fo......
-
Helmick v. Helmick
...422 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Courtney v. Warner, 290 So.2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).12 See, e.g., Sackler; McDuffie v. McDuffie, 155 Fla. 63, 19 So.2d 511 (1944).13 See, e.g., Yarborough v. Yarborough, 290 U.S. 202, 54 S.Ct. 181, 78 L.Ed. 269 (1933) (child support); Sistare v. Sistare......
-
Gibson v. Bennett, 71038
...and the stated objective that responsibility for maintenance of the family should not shift to the state. McDuffie v. McDuffie, 155 Fla. 63, 19 So.2d 511, 513 (1944). 2 When a Florida court structures a child support award, it has considered the needs of the children and has assigned the re......
-
Popper v. Popper
...of equitable remedies is a well-established practice in Florida. See Sackler v. Sackler, 47 So.2d 292 (Fla.1950); McDuffie v. McDuffie, 155 Fla. 63, 19 So.2d 511 (1944). When the out-of-state decree is one entered by the court of a foreign nation rather than a state or territory of the Unit......