Minor v. Minor
| Citation | 240 So.2d 301 |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 39592,39592 |
| Parties | Betty J. MINOR, Petitioner, v. Basil F. MINOR, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Collins, Collins, Hallett, Ford & Thurman, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Michael N. Athanason, Harris, Wing, Clark & Green, St. Petersburg, for respondent.
We have for review by writ of certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, 1 affirming a trial court order that compels the plaintiff wife in a divorce action to answer over objections invoking the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination certain pretrial deposition questions relating to the husband's counterclaim of adultery, or suffer dismissal of her complaint. The decision's direct conflict with Simkins v. Simkins 2 from the Third District Court of Appeal lodges jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.
The district court relies upon our decision in Stockham v. Stockham 3, in which we held that a plaintiff in a divorce action should not be permitted to further prosecute her action upon refusal to answer certain requests for admissions related to an affirmative defense of adultery. The majority of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reached an opposite conclusion in Simkins v. Simkins, Supra, by relying upon Spevack v. Klein 4 and Garrity v. New Jersey 5, two United States Supreme Court decisions handed down three years after rendition of Stockham by this Court.
We have carefully reviewed Spevack and Garrity, and other related cases for possible impact upon the precise issue now before the Court. We agree with the analysis of a majority of the district court that subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions do not require alteration of our previously expressed conclusion.
We adhere to our earlier decision in Stockham, disapprove the result reached in Simkins v. Simkins, Supra, and approve the decision of the district court below.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffith v. Griffith
....... FACTS . The parties were married in 1982 and have two minor children. They separated in March of 1994, and the wife brought an action for separate maintenance and support. The court granted her temporary ......
-
Mahne v. Mahne
......v. Republic Stuyvesant Corp., Supra, 95 N.J.Super. at 532--533, 231 A.2d 854; Kaye v. Newhall, 356 Mass. 300, 249 N.E.2d 583, 586 (1969); Cf. Minor v. Minor, 232 So.2d 746 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), aff'd, 240 So.2d 301 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1970). Furthermore, Supreme Court cases since Garrity and Spevack have ......
-
Jones v. BC Christopher & Co., 78-4192.
...a plaintiff's refusal to answer. Simkins v. Simkins, 219 So.2d 724 (Fla.App. 1969). This case has since been overruled. Minor v. Minor, 240 So.2d 301 (Fla.1970). The court has located only one case holding squarely that dismissal of a plaintiff's ordinary civil action in such circumstances ......
-
Pulawski v. Pulawski, 80-497-A
...to an affirmative defense of adultery. Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So.2d 320 (Fla.1964). This principle was reaffirmed in Minor v. Minor, 240 So.2d 301 (Fla.1970), after a review of Spevack and Garrity. In the latter case the Supreme Court of Florida again imposed the sanction of dismissal of......