Weeks v. Weeks

• Decision Date: 12 July 1940
• Citation: 143 Fla. 686,197 So. 393
• Parties: WEEKS v. WEEKS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

197 So. 393

143 Fla. 686

WEEKS v. WEEKS.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

July 12, 1940

Suit by Lotta N. Weeks against G. Frank Weeks for a divorce. From a final decree of divorce granting alimony and suit money to complainant, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake County; J. C B. Koonce, judge.

COUNSEL

Carlton & Sample, of Fort Pierce, for appellant.

J. W Hunter, of Tavares, and E. W. & R. C. Davis, of Orlando, for appellee.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

Appeal brings for review final decree of divorce granting alimony and suit money to the complainant-wife.

Appellant presents six questions for our consideration, viz.:

1. 'May a wife accept all of the benefits of a fair and equitable property settlement between herself and husband and afterwards through a court of equity require the husband to pay additional moneys for her separate maintenance and support?'

2. 'Where a wife has ample funds with which to support and maintain herself, all of which was given to her by the husband prior to the separation, may she require the husband through a court of equity to pay separate maintenance and support?'

3. 'Is sexual intercourse between husband and wife engaged in after acts constituting grounds for divorce, a condonation of the grounds for divorce sufficient to defeat the wife's claim for separate maintenance, proceeding under statute providing alimony connected with causes for divorce?'

4. 'Where a husband and wife enter into a fair and equitable property settlement after due and deliberate consideration by each of the parties and there has been no material change in the financial circumstances of either of the parties, should a court of equity disturb and vacate the agreement and decree the husband to pay additional moneys unto the wife as separate maintenance?'

5. 'Where husband and wife enter into a fair and equitable property settlement and separation agreement under which certain moneys are paid unto the wife in lieu of future maintenance and support, will isolated acts of sexual intercourse between the parties revoke such an agreement?'

6. 'Where a wife has sufficient moneys with which to maintain and support herself and to pay temporary attorney's fees, should a court of equity decree alimony and suit money pendente lite?'

After reading and considering the record, including the final decree, we are of the opinion that the real questions are as stated by the appellee, viz.:

1. 'Is a contract of separation entered into between husband and wife brought about by the husband, who at the time of its execution withholds all knowledge of his financial worth binding and enforceable?'

2. 'Does a resumption of the marital relation abrogate a separation agreement?'

The decree, inter alia, states:

5. 'That it is shown by the testimony that the complainant owns approximately $5,800 in mortages; whether or not these mortgages are worth that amount market value does not appear. At the present time, however, they are producing approximately $260 a year; that while the testimony of the Defendant as to his worth, on examination by the Complainant, is unsatisfactory as to definiteness, it is apparent that he has systematically conveyed away his property to his sons for the purpose of creating a trust fund for himself; that it can be gathered therefrom that he gets a basic amount of $150 a month, together with any other sum that he may see fit to demand That under these circumstances there is an obligation on the husband to support the wife in the manner in which she was supported prior to the separation, taking into consideration the income of the wife, and further considering that by reason of an ante-nuptial agreement she has waived all right to a dower interest in any of his property, and that upon his death she will be totally without support.

'It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed:

'That the Defendant in this case, G. Frank Weeks, do pay or cause to be paid to the Complainant, Lotta N. Weeks, the sum of $40.00 per month, on the 1st day of each and every month commencing with the 1st day of February, A. D. 1940; that he further pay to the Complainant as a reasonable solicitor's fee the sum of $150.00, in addition to that already paid; and that he pay the costs incurred in the prosecution of this suit, to be taxed by the Clerk. That the Court retain jurisdiction of the cause, in order to alter or amend the same as the circumstances of the parties may require.'

It appears that the Chancellor gave full consideration and effect to the ante-nuptial contract, although the record shows that at the time of its execution there was not a full and fair disclosure of the intended husband's financial status.

The record amply supports the finding of the Chancellor that after the execution of the separation agreement the marital relation was resumed by the parties.

The record also shows that the true financial worth and status of the husband was at all times withheld from the wife and for this reason it might not have been binding on the wife even if it had not been abrogated by a subsequent resumption of the marital status and relations.

The rule requiring full and fair disclosure of financial condition of the parties applies both to ante-nuptial property agreements and to separation agreements.

In Murdock v. Murdock, 219 Ill. 123, 76 N.E. 57, 59, it is said:

'The rule in this state is well settled that a man and woman who contemplate marriage may by an antenuptial contract, if there is a full knowledge on the part of the intended wife of all that materially affects the agreement settle their property rights in each other's estates. Yet it is held, if it appear that the provision made for the intended wife is disproportionate to the means of the intended husband, a presumption is raised in her favor that the execution of the agreement was brought about by a designed concealment of the amount of his property by the intended husband, and that the husband, or persons claiming through him, in order to sustain the agreement, have cast upon them the burden of proof to show that the intended wife, at the time she executed the agreement, had full knowledge of the nature, character, and value of the intended...