JOHN HARVEY JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA FEENEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HELEN MAE JOHNSON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns an appeal from a marriage dissolution judgment. The appellate court held that the judgment was void because the wife died after the judgment was entered but before the husband's motion for rehearing was decided, divesting the trial court of jurisdiction.
Yes, the final judgment of marriage dissolution is void. The death of a party after judgment but before the trial court rules on a timely motion for rehearing divests the trial court of jurisdiction.
[1] The death of a party to a marriage dissolution action before a final judgment is entered terminates the marriage relationship by operation of law and divests the trial co…
[2] A judgment entered by a trial court is not considered final while a timely motion for rehearing remains pending.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under these circumstances, we conclude that the final judgment under review is void and should have been vacated below upon proper motion filed by the husband.”
Establishes the appellate court's conclusion that the trial court's judgment was void.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment of marriage dissolution was entered. The wife, a party to the action, died after the judgment but before the trial court ruled on the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband John Harvey Johnson from a final judgment of marriage dissolution entered below, which, in addition to dissolving the marriage, affected the parties’ property rights. It appears without dispute, that the wife Helen Mae Johnson died — and a suggestion of death was filed below to that effect — after the final judgment was entered, but before the trial court had ruled on a timely motion for rehearing filed by the husband. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the final judgment under review is void and should have been vacated below upon proper motion filed by the husband. We reach this result based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, the death of a party to a marriage dissolution action before a final judgment is entered terminates the marriage relationship by operation of law and divests the trial court of jurisdiction to issue a final decree. Sahler v. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So. 2d 105 (1944); Price v. Price, 114 Fla. 233, 153 So. 905 (1934); Jaris v. Tucker, 414 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (en banc); McKendree v. McKendree, 139 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962).
Second, a judgment entered by a trial court is not final while a timely motion for rehearing remains pending. State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, 156 So. 2d 4, 7 (Fla.1963); Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Dixon v. Dixon, 184 So. 2d 478, 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. discharged, 194 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1967); Co-calis v. Cocalis, 103 So. 2d 230, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
Third, it therefore follows that the death of one of the parties to a marriage dissolution action after the entry of judgment, but before the trial court rules on a timely motion for rehearing and thereby terminates all judicial labor at the trial level, as here, terminates the marriage by operation of law and divests the trial court of jurisdiction to make the judgment final.
The final judgment of marriage dissolution is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the action below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Meta A. Sahler v. Eli I. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1944)
- Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Eugene W. Owens v. Honorable Tillman Pearson, 156 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1963)
- State v. City of Vero Beach, 114 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1934)
- Dixon v. Dixon, 184 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- McKENDREE v. McKENDREE, 139 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Cunningham v. Naples Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 414 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Cocalis v. Cocalis, 103 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Dixon v. Dixon, 194 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1967)