GEORGE H. SIMON, APPELLANT,
v.
AMANDA SIMON, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1917-04-19
73 Fla. 919 Florida Supreme Court (1917) Caution
Also reported at: 75 So. 35
Cited by 68 cases

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.

Synopsis

George H. Simon appealed a Florida divorce decree enforcing alimony from a New York judgment. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that Florida courts lacked jurisdiction to award alimony because both parties were New York residents, and the cross-bill failed to properly request enforcement of the New York decree.


Holding

The Florida Supreme Court held that because the appellee's own pleadings alleged that neither party was a Florida resident, the cross-bill for alimony should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Without a specific prayer in the cross-bill for enforcement of the New York decree, there was no proper basis for the Florida court to retain jurisdiction and enter the enforcement decree.


Key Quotes

“As the appellee alleges that neither she nor the appellant is a resident of this State, she is not entitled to sue for alimony or maintenance in the courts of this State.”

Establishes the fundamental jurisdictional requirement that at least one party must be a Florida resident for the court to have authority to award alimony.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

George H. Simon filed for divorce in Hillsborough County, Florida in January 1916, claiming two years of residence there. Amanda Simon denied his Flor…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, J.

Whitfield, J.

On January 18, 1916, George H. Simon filed a bill for divorce from his wife Amanda Simon on the statutory ground of a willful, obstinate and continued desertion of complainant by defendant for one year, and alleging “that he is now and has been for more than two years prior to the filing of this bill of complaint, an actual and bona fide resident of the County of Hillsborough and State of Florida.”

In the defendant’s answer filed February 5, 1916, she “denies that the complainant, Georg'e H. Simon, is now, or has been for more than two years last prior to the filing df his bill of complaint an actual and bona fide resident of the County of Plillsboroug'h and State of Florida, but alleges the truth and fact to be that the said complainant is a citizen and resident of Erie County in the State of New York.”

In a cross-bill seeking alimony filed by the defendant February 5, 1916, she alleges “that she is a resident of the County of Erie and State of New York.” A demurrer to the cross-bill was overruled and for failure to plead a decree pro confesso was entered against the cross-defendant George H. Simon.

.Testimony was taken as to a decree for divorce from bed and board and for alimony in favor of the cross-complainant rendered in New York State, and final decree was made in this cause to enforce the payment of alimony due under the New York decree and for attorney fees. Other proceedings were had, but they are not material here. Georg'e H. Simon took an appeal from the final decree and from certain other incidental decrees.

There was in the cross-bill no specific prayer for the enforcement of the.New York decree awarding-alimony. The decree rendered is in effect for an enforcement of the alimony decreed by the New York Court.

The cross-complainant, appellee here, alleges in .her cross-bill that she is a resident of the State of New York; and in her answer to the original bill in this cause filed the same day she “denies that the complainant George H. Simon, is now, * an actual and bona fide resident of the County of Hillsborough and State of Florida, but alleges the truth and fact to be that the said complainant is a citizen and resident of Erie County in the State of New York.” As the appellee alleges that neither she nor the appellant is a resident of this State, she is not entitled to sue for alimony or maintenance in the courts of this State. Donnelly v. Donnelly, 39 Fla. 229, 22 South. Rep. 648. This being so the cross-bill praying for alimony, should have been dismissed for want of 'jurisdiction as shown by the pleadings in the cause. There being no prayer in the cross-bill for the enforcement of the New York decree for alimony, there was no occasion for retaining the cross-bill for that purpose. The allegations of the cross-bill as to the property of the appellee in this State seem to indicate that a remedy at law is afforded.

The final decree and the decrees incidental thereto, that are appealed from, are reversed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Ellis, JJ., concur.

Other
Per Curiam.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

As the court held that the cross-bill praying for alimony should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction as shown by the pleadings in the cause, a discussion of the merits of the cause as requested by a petition for rehearing would be out of place, therefore, a rehearing is denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (37 total)

  • Pawley v. Pawley, 46 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1950)
    …comity, the foreign judgment relied on must partake of the elements that would support it if procured in this country. See Ogden v. Ogden, 159 Fla. 604, 33 So. 2d 870; Parker v. Parker, 155 Fla. 635, 21 So. 2d 141; and Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764, 75 So. 35, L.R.A. 1917E, 490, in which this question is discussed. Now let us examine the Cuban divorce and see if it meets the test of good faith, residence requirements, due process and justice to appellant in the manner required by the law of Florida. Sui…
  • Wade v. Wade, 93 Fla. 1004 (Fla. 1927)
    …domicile that is consequential, arising from a certain relation, as that of a wife arising from marriage.” Story’s Const. Law, See. 48. See also 9 R. C. L. 538. Speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Ellis, this Court in Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764, 75 South. Rep. 35, has said: “A legal residence or domicile in this State may be acquired by one who, coming from another State or Country, actually lives in this State with the intention of permanently remaining here. In such a case a domicile by choice is establish…
  • Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1933)
    …making the elements of domicile residence and the intent to remain.” Among the cases cited in support of the above text-quotation is the case of Smith v. Croom, 7 Fla. 81, 152-153. [*479] See, also, in this connection Warren v. Warren, 73 Fla. 764,-75 So. 35. In the latter case, it was held that so far as the statutes providing for the granting of alimony to a wife, when any of the causes for divorce exist in her favor, as well as the statute giving the wife the right to maintain a bill in equity agains…

Previewing 3 of 37 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw