Stephenson v. Stephenson
| Decision Date | 15 May 1951 |
| Citation | 52 So.2d 684 |
| Parties | STEPHENSON v. STEPHENSON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hardee & Hardee, Tampa, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson and Morison Buck, Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant and appellee were divorced in 1929 in a suit instituted by appellee. Pursuant to the terms of a stipulation between the parties, the final decree required appellant to pay to appellee the sum of $50 per month 'as permanent alimony and for the maintenance and support of the infant child of complainant and defendant' until the further order of court. The child, a daughter, was at that time four years of age. Twenty-one years later, by a petition for a rule to show cause directed to the appellant, the appellee sought to recover the arrearages of alimony and support money alleged to have accrued under the aforementioned decree, to wit, $12,600. The rule was issued; and appellant, who is a resident of North Carolina, defended on the grounds of (1) the statute of limitations, (2) laches, and (3) waiver and estoppel. The trial court heard the evidence of the parties and found for the appellee on all issues. This appeal is from the final decree awarding the appellee the sum of $10,840 as accrued alimony and support money, which sum reflects a credit of $2,060 shown to have been paid by appellant to his daughter and to which we will hereinafter refer.
The record reveals that, shortly after the parties were divorced, the appellant left the State of Florida and has not since been a resident of this state. He made no payments under the final decree until the year 1939, at which time, in response to a request contained in a letter from the appellee which was forwarded to appellant in Missouri, the appellant began making monthly payments to the daughter in sums ranging for the most part from $10 to $25. Only two payments were made in the amount of $50, as required by the decree. These small monthly payments were regularly made to the daughter over a seven-year period, or until 1947, when the daughter became 21 years of age. The total sum is admitted to be $2,060, which appears to include additional checks sent the daughter as birthday and Christmas presents and on other 'special occasions,' and, as heretofore noted, was credited on the amount found to be due under the final decree.
The appellee did not institute court proceedings against the appellant at any time during the 21 years intervening between the divorce and the instant proceedings and it is contended by appellant that appellee's 'unexplained and unexcusable delay of 21 years' constitutes laches. The appellee did not know the whereabouts of the appellant during the first ten years following the divorce, so that her failure to institute proceedings during that time cannot be said to be without reason. As for the seven-year period during which appellant regularly sent monthly sums to his daughter, her acquiescence in the payment of sums less than that due under the decree might, under some circumstances, constitute laches. See McKee v. McKee, 154 Kan. 340, 118 P.2d 544, 137 A.L.R. 880. However, the appellant's depositon, which was the only evidence offered in his behalf, is devoid of any showing that appellee's delay has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. Dean
...have occurred in the meantime a change in conditions that would render it inequitable to enforce the right asserted.' Stephenson v. Stephenson, 52 So.2d 684, 686 (Fla.1951) (citation omitted); see also Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Findings of such extraordinary preju......
-
Popper v. Popper
...1st DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1981); Armour v. Allen, 377 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); See also Stephenson v. Stephenson, 52 So.2d 684 (Fla.1951); Lightsey v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664, 8 So.2d 399 (1942); Newman v. Newman, 459 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 46......
-
Richards v. Dodge
...the trier of fact in light of the appropriate principles of law. Adelhelm v. Dougherty, 1937, 129 Fla. 680, 176 So. 775; Stephenson v. Stephenson, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 684; Carner and Sobel v. Shapiro, FlaApp.1958, 106 So.2d 87; 52 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 460 (1947); 32 Am.Jur., Landlord......
-
City of Miami v. Carter
...or disadvantage has resulted to the person against whom relief is sought. Bethea v. Langford, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 496; Stephenson v. Stephenson, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 684; Dacus v. Blackwell, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d The fact that the City will now have to pay, in lump sum, monies which it could have......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...So.2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 1986) (citing to McCain ). 2. Van Meter v. Kelsey , 91 So.2d 327, 330 (Fla. 1956). 3. Stephenson v. Stephenson , 52 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1951). 4. Cone v. Benjamin , 27 So.2d 90, 105 (Fla. 1946). 5. P. W. Wilkins & Co. v. Groves , 19 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1944). 6. Lightsey v. L......