Scales v. Scales, 70--371
| Decision Date | 23 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--371,70--371 |
| Citation | 237 So.2d 50 |
| Parties | Key SCALES, Appellant, v. Donna G. SCALES, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Creel & Glasgow, Miami, for appellant.
John W. Watson, III, and A. J. Barranco, Jr., Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
This is an interlocutory appeal growing out of a final judgment of divorce which was entered in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County on February 17, 1969. Therein, the divorce was granted in favor of appellee-wife, and an agreement dated January 24, 1969, which established the settlement of property rights, alimony child support and custody, was incorporated in the judgment.
The appellee moved to Dade County with her two children and thereafter, on August 5, 1969, filed the complaint in this cause. She alleged that the appellant had not made full payment to her under his obligation for support and maintenance of the minor children; that he was constantly in arrears as to his payments; that the expenses for support and maintenance had greatly increased; and that in view of the above stated circumstances, she was requesting a modification of the judgment pursuant to § 61.17, Fla.Stat.F.S.A. (1969).
On March 4, 1970, the appellee filed her motion to amend the complaint, which motion was granted by the court. The amendment included paragraph 6 of the complaint, and charged that at the time of the entry of the final judgment of divorce in Pinellas County, the appellee was completely unaware of the capital assets of the appellant because the appellant had secreted his assets and made false representations as to his net worth at the time that the property settlement agreement was executed. Paragraph 6 alleged that the appellant achieved the false representation as to his net worth by use of a corporate alter ego.
The appellant contends that paragraph 6, supra, represents a collateral attack on the final judgment, and as such, this cause of action should have been brought before the original court which granted the relief requested. We are compelled to agree with the appellant's position. As was stated in the case of Macfadden v. Muckerman, Fla.App.1959, 116 So.2d 448, 449:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Brown
...notwithstanding that motion under Rule 1.540(b) precluded because not brought within a year of entry of judgment); Scales v. Scales, 237 So.2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (same); In re Casco Chemical Co., 335 F.2d 645 (5th Cir.1964). We agree with these arguments. However, the appellee contends t......
-
August v. August
...was untimely and the trial court properly dismissed it. See Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Scales v. Scales, 237 So.2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), does not compel a contrary result. In that case, this court held that the proper venue for an action to modify a divorce judgme......