De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, s. 73--1019
| Decision Date | 27 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | 73--1092,Nos. 73--1019,s. 73--1019 |
| Citation | 287 So.2d 345 |
| Parties | Josefina De La PORTILLA, Appellant, v. Rafael De La PORTILLA, and Miriam Mulkay, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Brigham & Brigham, Miami, for appellant.
Seymour Litman, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Defendant-appellant takes this interlocutory appeal to review the chancellor's order striking appellant's first affirmative defense and dismissing appellant's counterclaim.
Plaintiff-appellee, Rafael De La Portilla, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage alleging that the marriage between him and appellant, his wife is irretrievably broken. In response thereto, appellant, Josefina De La Portilla, filed an answer in which she alleged that she and her husband, the appellee, were married in Cuba on August 27, 1940 and lived and cohabited together for some 33 years during which time she remained faithful to her husbanc and her marriage vows 'to love, honor and cherish him until death do them part.' That when her husband received his license to practice medicine in Miami, he rose rapidly in his profession, became a man of influence, and was devoted to his wife and family until he became acquainted with 'a designing woman of comely appearance', who became his paramour and flattered, cajoled and wheedled appellee out of large sums of money and property, a separate residence and a late model automobile. By reason of the above, defendant-appellee raises the defense that plaintiff-husband has not come into equity with clean hands and that his allegation that the marriage is irretrievably broken is but a sham to attempt to shamefully and unconscionably to avoid his marital obligations.
Appellant also filed a counterclaim against her husband and his paramour in which she alleged that the counter-defendants knowingly wrongfully, maliciously and unlawfully conspired to invade the privacy of appellant by wrecking and destroying her marriage. That as a proximate cause thereof, appellant has been greatly and permanently damaged in her health.
The husband-appellee moved to strike both the appellant's counterclaim and affirmative defense of 'unclean hands'. A hearing was held thereon and thereafter the chancellor granted the husband's motions. This interlocutory appeal follows.
On appeal, appellant-wife first contends that the chancellor erred in finding that the invoking of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDougald v. Jenson
...has been construed broadly by the Florida courts. See, e.g., Harrington v. Pages, 440 So.2d 521 (Fla.App.1983); De la Portilla v. De la Portilla, 287 So.2d 345 (Fla.App.1973), cert. denied, 295 So.2d 304 (Fla.1974). One court recently stated that the statute expresses the public policy of t......
-
Hutzel v. Franklin
......Pages, 440 So.2d 521. (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1983); De la Portilla v. De la. Portilla, 287 So.2d 345 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1973)). This statute ......
-
Chastain v. Chastain
...litigation. Bales v. Bales, 33 Ohio Misc. 221, 294 N.E.2d 252 (1971); Ryan v. Ryan, Fla., 277 So.2d 266 (1973); De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, Fla.App., 287 So.2d 345 (1973). A full scale application of the doctrine of unclean hands to divorce litigation would amount to an unwarranted ex......
-
Bush v. Bush, 84-73-II
...litigation. Bales v. Bales, 33 Ohio Misc. 221, 294 N.E.2d 252 (1971); Ryan v. Ryan, Fla. 277 So.2d 266 (1973); De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, Fla.App., 287 So.2d 345 (1973). In the present case, there is no evidence that the indiscretions of plaintiff occurred prior to or contemporaneous......