Peterson v. Paoli

Decision Date21 February 1950
Citation16 A.L.R.2d 1094,44 So.2d 639
PartiesPETERSON v. PAOLI.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Baxter & Baxter, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

A. G. Paoli and Hunter & Paoli, Hollywood, for appellee.

ROBERTS, Justice.

In December of 1948, Mary M. Peterson, the plaintiff-appellant, obtained an Order of Filiation in the Children's Court of the County of Westchester, State of New York, whereby Thomas J. Paoli, the defendant-appellee, was adjudged and declared to be the father of plaintiff's three minor children born out of wedlock, and whereby the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of $45.00 per week for the support of such children until their six-teenth birthday, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

No payments having been made pursuant to such Order of Filiation, in July of 1949 the plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court ob Broward County against the defendant to recover the sums in which the defendant was in arrears, totalling $1,260.00 at the time of filing of the suit. Plaintiff alleged that the order or judgment upon which she based her action still remained in full force and effect and was not reversed, satisfied or otherwise vacated, and attached to her declaration a duly authenticated copy of the Order of Filiation and proceedings had in connection therewith.

The defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's declaration was sustained by the lower court on the ground that 'the indebtedness described in the declaration has not been put in the form of a final judgment.' The plaintiff declining to amend further, final judgment for defendant was entered, from which judgment plaintiff has taken this appeal.

The question for our determination is: Is the Order of Filiation requiring the future payment of weekly sums for the support of the children such a final judgment, as to past-due and unpaid installments, as to be entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of this state?

At the outset, it may be stated that a final judgment entered in filiation proceedings requiring the payment of money for the support of the illegitimate children is such a judgment as to be entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of this state. See Am. Law Inst. Restatement, Conflict of Laws, Section 443, Comment c.

It may also be stated that, since the enactment of Chapter 25110, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1949, this court is required to thke judicial notice of the common law and statutes of other states. And, in the instant case, we deem it our duty to take judicial notice of the applicable and controlling statute of the State of New York, even though such statute was overlooked in the proceedings in the court below. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Holliday, 73 Fla. 269, 74 So. 479.

Article 8 of the Domestic Relations Law of the State of New York, McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 19, sets out the procedure for obtaining an Order of Filiation, authorizes the awarding of support money for the illegitimate children, and provides for the enforcement of the order as to the support of such children. Section 131 of Article 8 provides that 'The court shall have continuing jurisdiction over proceedings brought to compel support and education and to increase or decrease the amount fixed by the order of filiation, until the judgment of the court has been completely satisfied.'

We are confronted, then, with the question of whether or not the power to increase or decrease the amount fixed by the Order of Filiation applies to past-due installments, as well as to future installments. If such power extends to all installments, both past-due and future, then the Order is not such a final judgment as to be entitled to full faith and credit in our courts. If, however, the Order is not subject to modification as to installments which are already due, then the judgment as to such installments is final and must be given full faith and credit here. 31 Am.Jur., Judgment, Section 558, page 167.

We have been unable to find any decision of a New York court construing the above-quoted provision of Section 131 of Article 8. Neither have we found a decision from a court of another state construing a similar provision in their statutes relating to filiation proceedings. Since an order for the payment of support money in such proceedings partakes of the same general nature and characteristics as an order entered in a divorce proceeding for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Engelson v. Mallea
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1970
    ...in Iowa too, for the judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. State of Indiana ex rel. Stone v. Helmer, 21 Iowa 370; Peterson v. Paoli, 44 So.2d 639 (Fla.); Ladd v. Martineau, 205 Minn. 129, 285 N.W. 281; Bjorgo v. Bjorgo, 402 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.). Moreover, our statute requires us to re......
  • Aboandandolo v. Vonella
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1956
    ...notice to the adverse party or parties in the pleadings or otherwise and should produce supporting authorities. Peterson v. Paoli, Fla., 44 So.2d 639, 16 A.L.R.2d 1094; Kingston v. Quimby, Fla., 80 So.2d Appellant's answer to the complaint did not allege that the New Jersey statute of limit......
  • Clester v. Heidt's Estate
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1960
    ...faith and credit as a final judgment for the monthly sums which have accrued and are due and payable thereunder.' In Peterson v. Paoli, Fla., 44 So.2d 639, 16 A.L.R.2d 1094, plaintiff brought action in Florida upon a judgment rendered in the State of New York ordering installment payments f......
  • Mocher v. Rasmussen-Taxdal, RASMUSSEN-TAXDA
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1965
    ...custody is that such an award is not a final judgment because it is subject to change by the rendering court. In Peterson v. Paoli, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 639, 16 A.L.R.2d 1094, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Roberts, held that under a New York statute the order of filiation, requi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Judicial notice on appeal: why all the fuss?
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 80 No. 5, May 2006
    • May 1, 2006
    ...Fla. Evidence Code, 372 So. 2d 1369, 1369 (Fla. 1979). (12) Reese v. Levin, 123 So. 809 (Fla. 1929); see also, e.g., Peterson v. Paoli, 44 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1950) (judicially noticed "applicable and controlling statute of the State of New York, even though such statute was overlooked in the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT