Merritt v. Merritt
| Decision Date | 21 December 1951 |
| Citation | 55 So.2d 735 |
| Parties | MERRITT v. MERRITT. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rosin, Paderewski & Lewis, Sarasota, for petitioner.
Frank Redd, Sarasota, for respondent.
Grace Merritt, petitioner herein, has made application for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review that certain order entered by the Chancellor on August 13, 1951, in a divorce action wherein petitioner was defendant and Harold L. Merritt (respondent here) was plaintiff.
The challenged order was one wherein the Chancellor denied the motion to dismiss which was filed by counsel for the petitioner. The motion to dismiss raised the question of the propriety of venue in this cause in Hardee County as may be done by motion to dismiss under Equity Rule No. 33(b), 31 F.S.A.
The bill of complaint alleged that the parties were married in Sarasota County, Florida, in which county they resided until Grace Merritt left the home of the parties on or about September 28, 1950. At the time a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss the Chancellor allowed an amendment to the complaint which was to the effect that Grace Merritt absconded from the home of the parties 'with the intention of abandoning her Florida residence.'
The complaint further alleged that Harold L. Merritt at the time of the marriage owned certain real property located in the County of Sarasota, State of Florida, and that upon marriage he conveyed a one-half interest in and to said property unto Grace Merritt upon her promise that she would be unto him 'a loyal and dutiful wife.' The prayer of the bill is for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii and for a decree determining and declaring that the entire title to the described real estate by fully restored to Harold L. Merritt.
The motion to dismiss because of improper venue was predicated upon the fact that the bill of complaint shows affirmatively that the parties were married in Sarasota County and resided therein until their separation; that the defendant is not shown by the bill to be a resident of Hardee County and that the real property in controversy is located, as disclosed by the description contained in the complaint, in Sarasota County.
Counsel for petitioner take the position that their motion to dismiss because of improper venue should have been determined with reference to the original complaint and that it was error to allow the amendment to be made instanter at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. They must of necessity take this position if the amendment which was allowed, coupled with the allegation that Grace Merritt 'is a non-resident of Florida, having her residence and place of abode at No. 7 Riley Place, Binghamton, New York', should be held to have the effect of destroying the impact of Section 46.01, F.S.A., because it is expressly provided in said section that 'This section shall not apply to suits against non-residents.' Section 46.01, supra, is the statute which provides that suits shall be begun only in the county where the defendant resides or where the cause of action accrued or where the property in litigation is located. We do not find it necessary to determine whether the Chancellor erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colwell v. Royal Intern. Trading Corp.
...However, the Florida Supreme Court has long held that a wife may acquire a domicile separate from her husband. See Merritt v. Merritt, 55 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla.1951). In this case, Appellants intended to establish a homestead, and did so by actually using and occupying their respective proper......
-
Ashmore v. Ashmore
...Schooley, Fla.1963, 158 So.2d 514; Brown v. Brown, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 382; Franks v. Franks, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 282; Merritt v. Merritt, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 735; McIntyre v. McIntyre, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 824; Pawley v. Pawley, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 464; Chisholm v. Chisholm, Fla.1929, 98 Fl......
-
Schooley v. Judd
...of its exercise and endures as long as the necessity continues. Herron v. Passailaigue, 1926, 92 Fla. 818, 110 So. 539; Merritt v. Merritt, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 735. Since the 1938 Amendment to Article X, Section 7, it has not been necessary to establish the relationship of the head of a hous......
-
Judd v. Schooley
...to the effect that a wife may acquire a separate residence 'if it should become proper or necessary for her to do so.' Merritt v. Merritt, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 735. By its decision, which we now review, the District Court held that the constitutional requirement of 'good faith' implicitly imp......