Walker v. Walker

Decision Date12 September 1990
Docket NumberNo. 90-237,90-237
Citation566 So.2d 1350
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D2333 Johnny Paul WALKER, Jr., Appellant, v. Melody Langley WALKER, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James W. Middleton, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

Mark D. Davis of Ramey & Davis, DeFuniak Springs, for appellee.

NIMMONS, Judge.

The former husband appeals the trial court's entry of final judgment of divorce, contending that the trial court should have refrained from ruling, in light of prior separation and divorce proceedings in Louisiana. We agree and reverse.

The parties lived in Louisiana with their two daughters (born in November 1981 and June 1984) from November 1987 to July 1988, when the wife and the children moved to Walton County, where they resided at the time of the final hearing in the instant case. Appellant remained in Louisiana.

In December 1988, in an action filed by the appellee earlier that year, a "judgment of separation," obtained by appellee but based upon agreement of the parties, was entered in a Louisiana court in Case No. 41,844. This judgment (which recited that both parties were present at the final hearing with their attorneys) declared a separation between the parties (on the basis of the "mutual fault of both parties"). 1 The judgment further recited that the parties were granted joint custody of the children with primary residence with appellee and reasonable visitation for appellant. Appellant was directed to pay child support in the amount of $200 per child, per month. Provisions were also made regarding the parties' property.

In August 1989, appellee filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Walton County. Three weeks later, appellant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Case No. 41,844 was still pending, that all issues except the actual dissolution of marriage had been determined and were therefore res judicata, and that "the actual divorce between the parties is an active and pending case." Appellant subsequently filed in September 1989, a petition for absolute divorce in the same Louisiana court in Case No. 43,909. In November 1989, the Louisiana court granted a "judgment of absolute divorce" which did not address, or retain jurisdiction to address, any other subjects. The judgment recited that both parties were represented by counsel at the final hearing. 2 Appellant filed a certified copy of this judgment with the trial court in the instant case and moved for dismissal on the ground that no further issues remained to be litigated. This motion was also denied.

At hearing in December 1989, the Walton County Circuit Court entered a final judgment of dissolution. This judgment of dissolution points out that the Louisiana judgment of absolute divorce fails to incorporate or refer to the separation judgment which had been entered in a different case number. The trial court adjudicated the property rights of the parties, including awarding $650 per month child support based upon Florida's Child Support Guidelines. The court also ordered shared parental custody with appellee's home as the primary residence of the children, and set a visitation schedule. The court did not award alimony but reserved jurisdiction over the issue.

In a Florida proceeding in which the effect of a judgment of dissolution from another state is at issue, the general rule is that in the absence of a showing to the contrary, the trial court is to presume that the law of the foreign state is the same as that of Florida. Collins v. Collins, 160 Fla. 732, 36 So.2d 417 (1948); Morin v. Morin, 466 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Coyne v. Coyne, 325 So.2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In the instant case the trial court was not provided with any evidence of Louisiana law, although counsel for appellee suggested at the final hearing that the reference to "mutual fault" in the judgment of separation would disqualify appellee from alimony under Louisiana law.

The judgment of absolute divorce entered in Louisiana is entitled to full faith and credit in Florida. Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Overly v. Overly, 66 So.2d 706 (Fla.1953). A final judgment of divorce is res judicata as to all property rights of the parties which could have and should have been adjudicated in that proceeding. Davis v. Dieujuste, 496 So.2d 806 (Fla.1986). In Davis the court stated:

[W]here a trial court has acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate the respective rights and obligations of the parties, a final judgment of dissolution settles all such matters as between the spouses evolving during the marriage, whether or not these matters were introduced in the dissolution proceeding, and acts as a bar to any action thereafter to determine such rights and obligations.

Id. at 809, 810.

Where a final judgment of divorce does not award alimony or retain jurisdiction to do so, the court may not subsequently award alimony. Amend v. Amend, 341 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, in the instant case the court should not have adjudicated the property rights of the parties or reserved jurisdiction to award alimony. 3

The above-stated rule does not, however, apply to an award of child support, which is an obligation that the parties owe to their children rather than to each other. Amend, supra; Cross v. Cross, 490 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Armour v. Armour, 377 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The question, therefore, is what effect the Louisiana judgment of absolute divorce, in conjunction with the earlier judgment of separation, has upon the issues of child support and custody. This analysis is complicated by the fact that Florida law does not provide for anything directly comparable to the judgment of separation, although Sections 61.09 and 61.10, Florida Statutes both provide for actions to require a still-married spouse to support his family. It is therefore helpful to examine Louisiana law, even though Florida law is applicable to this proceeding.

Under Louisiana law, where a judgment of separation awarding child support is followed by an absolute divorce judgment which is silent as to child support, the child support award remains intact. Lewis v. Lewis, 404 So.2d 1230 (La.1981). The Lewis holding is based upon the rationale that the parents' obligation to support their children has an independent legal basis and "cannot be identified with the subject matter of the divorce or separation suit or be considered incidental to it." Lewis at 1234. This is consistent with the Florida case law cited supra to the effect that the obligation to pay child support is an obligation independent of the parents' obligations to each other.

Since Lewis, the Louisiana courts have found that where the amount of child support has been set by judgment of separation or otherwise prior to the divorce action, the court may not award a different amount in the divorce decree unless a change of circumstances justifying modification is shown. Sanford v. Sanford, 468 So.2d 844 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985); Clooney v. Clooney, 446 So.2d 981 (La.App. 3d Cir.1984) (Doucet, J., with two judges concurring in the result). Accordingly, we adopt the Louisiana...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Salenius v. Salenius
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • February 9, 1995
    ...(1988) (wife waived rights to stock and profit sharing plan by failing to raise them before entry of judgment); Walker v. Walker, 566 So.2d 1350, 1352 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990) (property decree bars subsequent litigation over property rights that should have been and could have been raised in ......
  • Thomas v. Perkins, No. 98-385
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 21, 1998
    ...were or should have been raised in the Wilson II appeal regarding the appellees' entitlement to fees and costs. See Walker v. Walker, 566 So.2d 1350, 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Braden v. Braden, 436 So.2d 914, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA Alternatively, Thomas argues that the fees and costs awarded by t......
  • Barnett v. Barnett, 2D00-2420.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 8, 2001
    ...Tennessee judgment. Bowers v. Bowers, 326 So.2d 172 (Fla.1976); Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Walker v. Walker, 566 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also Atwell v. Atwell, 730 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). For that reason, the trial court in this more recent ins......
1 books & journal articles
  • § 13.01 Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 13 The Divorce Action
    • Invalid date
    ...App. 2015).[73] See: Wisconsin: Haeuser v. Haeuser, 200 Wis.2d 750, 548 N.W.2d 535 (Wis. App. 1996). [74] See: Florida: Walker v. Walker, 566 So.2d 1350 (Fla. App. 1990). Massachusetts: Heron v. Heron, 438 Mass. 537, 703 N.E.2d 712 (1998). New York: O'Connell v. Corcoran, 1 N.Y.3d 179, 770 ......

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