Reese v. Reese, 34941
| Decision Date | 23 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 34941,34941 |
| Citation | 192 So.2d 1 |
| Parties | Margaret L. REESE, Petitioner, v. Homer A. REESE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for petitioner.
James A. Dixon, Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for respondent.
The third district court's decision in this case, that petitioner's bigamous marriage ceremony was effective to terminate her right to alimony due under a decree of divorce from her former husband, is expressly predicated on her acceptance of the right to support from the second putative husband, whose death followed immediately after the alleged marriage. The subsidiary point of law was determined as follows:
'This right of support, which is designated Alimony, is therefore an incident of a valid marriage or, in some instances, Of an invalid marriage if the presumed wife is the victim of a presumed husband's wrong.' Reese v. Reese, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 913, 916.
The decision on this point of law appears to us to be in direct conflict with that of the District Court, First District, in Dawson v. Dawson, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 536, 539, holding that alimony or support money unconnected with divorce was 'not available because at the time suit was filed the parties did not bear the marital relation.' (E.S.) This decision reversing an award of alimony was based squarely on the absence of a valid marriage. Although reference was made to bad faith on the part of both parties in resorting to a Mexican divorce, the court in its opinion found that the putative husband 'led her to believe that such was accomplished' before the 'marriage' and the decision reversing the award of alimony was based not upon fraud but simply on the absence of a valid marriage. This, in our opinion, collides with the holding in the case at bar that the victimized putative wife acquired a right to support under our law and for that reason must be deemed to have relinquished any rights under the existing alimony decree.
The court in the opinion now under consideration did cite persuasive dicta from other opinions of this Court. 1 We find, however, as noted by the district court in Dawson, supra, no previous decision in this state awarding permanent alimony or support to one in petitioner's legal situation following a bigamous marriage. In any event, the opinions relied on do not eliminate the conflict with Dawson above noted.
On the merits of the issue involved, we are unable to see how the speculative possibility of an alimony or support claim arising out of a void marriage contract could terminate the provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joye v. Yon, 3335.
...§ 791 (1998). Under this approach, a void marriage is void ab initio and by definition, is no marriage at all. See Reese v. Reese, 192 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1966); Johnston v. Johnston, 3 Kan.App.2d 208, 592 P.2d 132, 135 (1979); Watts v. Watts, 250 Neb. 38, 547 N.W.2d 466, 470 (1996); Brewer v. ......
-
MacPherson v. MacPherson
...to a wife who entered into a bigamous marriage on the theory that a void marriage is ineffective to alter legal rights. Reese v. Reese, 192 So.2d 1 (Fla.1966) ; DeWall v. Rhoderick, 258 Iowa 433, 138 N.W.2d 124 (1965). Moreover, even when the marriage is voidable, recovery has been allowed ......
-
Frye v. Frye
...married." Friedman v. Schneider, supra, at 421; Reese v. Reese, 178 So.2d 913, 915-16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), rev'd on other grounds, 192 So.2d 1 (Fla.1966). That definition was supported by Section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1969), and its predecessor statutes, which provided for alimony to the ......
-
Joye v. Yon
...spouse is not relieved of his periodic alimony obligation. See Broadus v. Broadus, 361 So.2d 582, 585 (Ala.Civ.App.1978); Reese v. Reese, 192 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 1966); Johnston v. Johnston, 3 Kan.App.2d 208, 592 P.2d 132, 135 (1979); Watts v. Watts, 250 Neb. 38, 547 N.W.2d 466, 470 (1996); Br......