Turner v. Turner, 66--254

Decision Date13 December 1966
Docket NumberNo. 66--254,66--254
PartiesAnne TURNER, Appellant, v. Paul TURNER, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Seymour Silverman, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Koeppel & Klein, Miami, and Norman K. Schwarz, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has appealed a final decree of divorce. She has assigned and argued error on each of the financial provisions of the decree. The appellee has cross assigned each provision which he deems adverse to him. The question presented in each instance is whether the record supports the finding of the chancellor.

While we cannot say that the record is without error, we hold that, with the exception of one particular hereafter discussed, it does not present reversible error. The essential holding of the chancellor is that because of devious and deceptive dealings of the parties he was unable, upon the evidence before him, to trace the equitable interest of the parties in the various assets acquired by the parties during their marriage. 1 This holding is fully substantiated by the record. We therefore affirm the decree as to the attacks upon its financial provisions upon authority of Picchi v. Picchi, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 627.

One of the cross assignments of error argued by the appellee urges that the following portion of the decree is unenforceable:

'(j) The defendant is ordered to co-operate with plaintiff in obtaining a Jewish divorce, any expense therefor shall be paid by the plaintiff.'

It is apparent that the thrust of the order by the chancellor to the appellee is that the appellee must submit to a religious ceremony in which he will be required to take an active part. If allowed to stand, this order would be enforceable by contempt proceedings and possibly by confinement of the appellee in jail.

The statutes of the State of Florida (see Ch. 65) provide for only one kind of divorce; that is, a civil divorce 'from the bonds of matrimony'. An examination of the statute reveals that there is no authorization for a chancellor to require the parties to secure a religious divorce.

We have not considered the appellee's contentions that requiring him to participate in a religious ceremony is a violation of his civil rights and the principle of the separation of church and state.

We hold that the circuit judge had no authority to order the appellee to participate in a religious ceremony. We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Victor v. Victor
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 1993
    ...divorce document based on equitable considerations; the religious divorce is not germane to the civil dissolution. See Turner v. Turner, 192 So.2d 787 (Fla.App.1966) (Florida statute that provides for only civil divorce does not authorize chancellor to require parties to secure religious di......
  • Bloch v. Bloch, 95-2318
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 1997
    ...the former husband to participate in a religious ceremony, Fleischer v. Fleischer, 586 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Turner v. Turner, 192 So.2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 233 (Fla.1967), we find that this provision is nothing more than a permissible reservation of ju......
  • Fleischer v. Fleischer, 90-1515
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 1991
    ...position to remarry within the Jewish religion. See Minkin v. Minkin, 180 N.J.Super. 260, 434 A.2d 665, 667 (1981). In Turner v. Turner, 192 So.2d 787 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 233 (1967), the third district held that such a provision is On appeal, the husband argues that......
  • Litzky's Estate, In re, 73-1182
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1974
    ...of marriage, one which is entered into by the parties in good faith and in substantial compliance with Chapter 741. Cf. Turner v. Turner, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 787, cert. den. Fla., 201 So.2d Therefore, for the reason stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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