Newton v. Newton
| Decision Date | 17 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 39724,39724 |
| Citation | 245 So.2d 45 |
| Parties | Uhlan Stanley NEWTON, Petitioner, v. Ruby Virginia NEWTON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William Murrell, Jr., Orlando, for petitioner.
Gladstone L. Kohloss and Donald R. Corbett, Orlando, for respondent.
This cause arose when respondent wife brought suit for divorce against petitioner husband in the Circuit Court of Orange County. Petitioner defended by stating that the marriage had been dissolved, and exhibited a final decree of divorce, valid on its face, entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court in the State of Nevada. The plaintiff wife amended her complaint to state that defendant had secured a divorce in another state; she did not allege that the Nevada divorce was invalid. The trial court did not dismiss the cause nor find that the Nevada divorce was invalid, but instead entered an order requiring defendant to pay to plaintiff temporary alimony and temporary counsel's fees. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed per curiam; 234 So.2d 746.
This Court issued writ of certiorari and took jurisdiction pursuant to F.A.R. 2.1, subd. a(5)(b), 32 F.S.A., to resolve apparent conflict with the prior decision in Stewart v. Stewart, 115 Fla. 158, 155 So. 114 (1934), in which this Court held that a trial court could not order payment of alimony or counsel's fees until it had determined whether the Nevada divorce involved in that case was invalid.
It is provided by the Federal Constitution, § 1, art. IV, that 'Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State * * *.'
It is well-established law that every state is required to recognize and respect the valid final decrees and orders of the courts of all other states. A decree or order valid in the state where it is issued ordinarily will be honored in any state where an attempt is made to bring suit on the same cause of action. A divorce decree of any state is presumed valid on its face and until same is proved to be invalid serves as a bar to successful prosecution of another action for divorce in this State. The trial court is not at liberty to ignore the binding order of the foreign court.
The order of this Court in Stewart v. Stewart, Supra, is controlling in this case, being:
(p. 115)
The affirmance of the District Court of Appeal is quashed, and this cause is remanded to the District Court to be further remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
It is so ordered.
I am afraid the majority of the Court has overlooked the fact the Respondent alleged by amendment to her divorce complaint the 8th statutory ground 'that the defendant (petitioner, former husband) has obtained a divorce from Plaintiff in any other state (Nevada) or country.' See F.S. Section 61.041(8), F.S.A. She is not challenging...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinebrook v. Pinebrook, 74--1655
...therefore entitled to enforcement in our courts under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. Newton v. Newton, 245 So.2d 45 (Fla.1971); Overly v. Overly, 66 So.2d 706 We find that the trial court further erred in dismissing the second count of appellant's amende......
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin
...(1895). See also 1B Moore's Federal Practice para. 0.404(10) at 571 (2d ed. 1974).8 U.S.Const., art. IV, § 1. See, e. g., Newton v. Newton, 245 So.2d 45 (Fla.1971).9 Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 28 S.......
-
Schaffer v. Overby, 92-2205
...the order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See, e.g., Newton v. Newton, 245 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla.1971); Gaylord v. Gaylord, 45 So.2d 507, 510 (Fla.1950); Vereen v. Vereen, 581 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Garland v. Lewis, 547 So......
-
O'Keeffe v. O'Keeffe
...as it ultimately did, that the parties had already been divorced in Panama. Bowers v. Bowers, 326 So.2d 172 (Fla.1976); Newton v. Newton, 245 So.2d 45 (Fla.1971); Gross v. Security Trust Co., 453 So.2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see Hernandex v. Leiva, 391 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Bernst......