Miller v. Miller, A-261
| Decision Date | 02 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. A-261,A-261 |
| Parties | Leslie W. MILLER, Appellant v. Louise M. MILLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James H. Bunch, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Milam, LeMaistre, Ramsay & Martin, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Appellant has appealed from a summary final decree entered in chancery awarding appellee, appellant's former wife, the sum of $6,150, together with attorney's fees in the sum of $500. The decree was based upon a judgment in like amount rendered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York for arrearages in the payment of alimony for appellee and support money for the child born of the marriage between the parties.
By her complaint appellee alleged the procurement of a judgment against appellant in the New York court for arrearages in the payment of support for herself and the child as required by a judgment of judicial separation previously rendered by that court. The complaint further alleged that defendant had failed and refused to pay the sums due and owing under the mentioned judgment; that plaintiff had been unable to obtain execution against the goods and chattels of defendant in the State of New York; and that she was without adequate remedy at law and would be unable to enforce judgment entered in accordance with the prayer of her complaint without the aid of equity. Plaintiff therefore prayed for judgment in the amount set forth in the judgment obtained by her in the State of New York, plus interest, cost and attorney's fees.
Proof in affidavit form was submitted by plaintiff in support of her motion for summary decree which proofs adequately sustained the allegations of the complaint.
In the summary final decree from which this appeal is taken the chancellor treated the suit under consideration as one brought to enforce the New York judgment representing arrearages due for alimony and support for plaintiff and her child, and discerning no genuine issue as to any material fact decreed plaintiff to be entitled to the equitable remedies sought as a matter of law.
Appellant contends that the court was without jurisdiction to enter a money judgment against him for the reason that the suit brought by appellee in the Chancery Court of Duval County was one for debt cognizable only in a common law action. With this contention we cannot agree.
It has been repeatedly held that equity courts of this state are open to nonresident wives for enforcement by equitable processes of final decrees for alimony and support, or for the enforcement of judgments representing past due and unpaid alimony and support awarded by courts of our sister states. Under the doctrine of comity this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Bennett, 71038
...92 (Fla.1955); Grotnes v. Grotnes, 338 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); West v. West, 301 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Miller v. Miller, 105 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958), cert. quashed, 112 So.2d 832 Gibson contends, however, that the rule laid down in Sackler is no longer the prevailing l......
-
Bennett v. Gibson
...(Fla.1952); Grotnes v. Grotnes, 338 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); West v. West, 301 So.2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) and Miller v. Miller, 105 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). In Sackler, the wife, in a New York divorce proceeding, was awarded custody of the parties' two minor children and the ......
-
Grotnes v. Grotnes
...v. Sackler, 47 So.2d 292 (Fla.1950); Haas v. Haas, 59 So.2d 640 (Fla.1952); Lanigan v. Lanigan, 78 So.2d 92 (Fla.1955); Miller v. Miller, 105 So.2d 386 (Fla.1st DCA 1958); West v. West, 301 So.2d 823 (Fla.2nd DCA 1974). The principle upon which these cases rest was first announced by the Fl......
-
Cox v. Pow
...Gammill, 148 Miss. 723, 114 So. 813); Sackler v. Sackler, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 292; Haas v. Haas, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 640; Miller v. Miller, Fla.App .1958, 105 So.2d 386. On authority of the cited cases it was eminently correct for the Florida court, on the basis of comity, to apply its equita......