Wolk v. Leak
| Decision Date | 12 February 1954 |
| Citation | 70 So.2d 498 |
| Parties | WOLK v. LEAK. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Daniel G. Satin, Miami, for appellant.
Sidney L. Segall, Miami, for appellee.
On August 1, 1951, Anna Elizabeth Leak brought suit in the Circuit Court for Dade County against Harry E. Wolk, her ex-husband, to recover past-due alimony and child-support money allegedly due and payable under a divorce decree rendered in the courts of Ohio in favor of the wife on June 30, 1950. In due course, the defendant filed an answer in the cause in which he denied that he was in default in the payment of said items to the plaintiff. Testimony was taken on the issues, and, on November 19, 1951, the special master filed his report in which he found the equities of the cause to be with the wife and that a decree should be entered in her favor for the amount of the past-due alimony and support money.
Before the cause came on for final hearing on the master's report, the defendant, on January 3, 1952, filed a motion for a re-reference of the cause to the special master, upon the ground, among others, that if a re-reference were allowed, evidence and law would be submitted that the Ohio divorce decree, so far as it pertained to past-due alimony and support money, was subject to modification and change, under controlling Ohio law, and that, consequently, Florida courts were not required to give full faith and credit to such decrees.
Before the motion for re-reference was called on for hearing, the trial court, on January 23, 1952, entered a final decree, confirming the Master's Report and Recommendations and adjudicating that as to the amount found to be due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff for past-due alimony and support money under the Ohio decree the plaintiff should have an equitable lien upon certain Florida property owned by the defendant.
The defendant's motion for re-reference was finally heard by the trial court on March 5, 1952. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court entered an order that the final decree of January 23, 1952 be 'set aside, cancelled and held for naught'; and that the cause be re-referred to the master for the purpose of taking additional testimony and making findings and recommendations, upon the following conditions: 'That, as a condition precedent to the taking of the testimony * * * the [defendant is] required to deposit into the registry of this Court, the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty ($250.00) Dollars, which sum is to be utilized for the purpose of defraying the transportation expense of the plaintiff * * * in order that she may attend the hearings scheduled by the Special Master.'
No effort was ever made by the defendant, in pursuance of the order of re-reference, to submit to the master any evidence as to the state of the law in Ohio in respect to the modification of decrees for alimony and support money. Consequently, on March 5, 1953, the plaintiff moved the court to enter a final decree pursuant to the original findings and recommendations contained in the master's report filed November 19, 1951.
Before this motion came on for hearing the defendant filed in the cause a paper called an 'answer to the plaintiff's motion for final decree' to which were attached copies of certain pleadings filed in the Ohio divorce suit in a contempt proceeding instituted by the wife to compel the defendant to comply with the terms of the divorce decree; namely, a motion filed in the proceeding by the defendant on October 13, 1950, to modify the original divorce decree of June 30, 1950, so far as it pertained to support payments; and an order of the Ohio court, dated May 29, 1952, which contained the following adjudications:
Subsequently, on March 16, 1953, the Dade County Circuit Court entered a final order in which it decreed that the order of the court, dated March 5, 1952, by which said court had vacated the final decree of January 23, 1952, be set aside and vacated; that the said final decree be reinstated; and that all payments of money due or to become due under the terms of said final decree be deposited into the registry of the court.
An appeal has been taken from this order.
The rule is settled in this jurisdiction that foreign divorce decrees providing for alimony and support money are entitled to full faith and credit in Florida, to the extent that payments thereunder are accrued, unless the law of the state where the decree is rendered is such that said decree may be modified as to accrued installments. Boyer v. Andrews, 143 Fla. 462, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Gallo, 08-1315.
...sought a lien on it in a Florida state court as a remedy for Ms. Emery's noncompliance with the dissolution judgment. See Wolk v. Leak, 70 So.2d 498, 501 (Fla.1954) (affirming circuit court's decision to place an equitable lien on the former husband's property where the former husband owed ......
-
Edgar v. Edgar, 2062
...the law of the state where the decree was rendered is such that the decree can be modified as to the accrued installments. Wolk v. Leak, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 498; Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307; Boyer v. Andrews, 143 Fla. 462, 196 So. 825. The Court pointed out in Wolk v. Leak, su......
-
Fugassi v. Fugassi, 74--1752
...due but are subject to change. In the absence of such a showing, the presumption must be indulged that there is no such law. Wolk v. Leak, 70 So.2d 498 (Fla.1954); Boyer v. Andrews, 143 Fla. 462, 196 So. 825 (1940). In the case at bar there was no showing that Pennsylvania law permitted ret......
-
Miller v. Shulman, 59-229
...modified as to accrued installments. Boyer v. Andrews, 143 Fla. 462, 196 So. 825; Cohen v. Cohen, 158 Fla. 802, 30 So.2d 307; Wolk v. Leak, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 498; and see Watson v. McDowell, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 680. It appears to be equally settled by these authorities that in a suit t......