LOIS A. REGANTE, A/K/A LOIS A. BELSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY L. REGANTE, 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 appeal concerns the effect of a prior reversal on a default judgment of dissolution. The wife appealed a partial summary judgment that held the prior default judgment of dissolution remained viable after appellate reversal, which cut off her ability to enforce temporary support arrearages. The court reversed, clarifying that the prior reversal vacated the entire default judgment and remanded all issues except marital validity for trial.
The prior reversal vacated the entire default judgment of dissolution and returned the case to its posture before the July 1, 1991 final judgment. All issues except the validity of the marriage remain for disposition on remand, including temporary support arrearages, temporary and permanent spousal support, and child support issues.
[1] An appellate court's reversal of a default judgment of dissolution vacates the judgment and returns the parties to the posture of the case prior to the entry of that judg…
[2] When an appellate court reverses a final judgment of dissolution and remands for trial on all issues except the validity of the marriage, all other issues, including supp…
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“We intended in our first opinion to vacate the default judgment of dissolution and for the parties to return to the posture of the case previous to the final default judgment of dissolution entered July 1, 1991.”
Establishes the court's intent in the prior reversal was to vacate the entire default judgment, not merely suspend it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife petitioned for dissolution in June 1989. A default judgment of dissolution was entered on July 1, 1991. The husband appealed and obtained a r…
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 Vacating Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In June 1989 the appellant [wife] petitioned for dissolution. After many motions and orders not relevant here a default judgment of dissolution was entered on July 1, 1991. The appellee [husband] brought that final order to us and we reversed the final judgment of dissolution in all respects and remanded for trial of all issues except the issue of whether there had been a valid marriage of the parties. Regante v. Belsky, 600 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA1992) [Regante I ]. On remand it became an issue whether the final judgment dissolving the marriage survived the decision of this court in Regante I.
The trial court entered a partial summary judgment finding that the previous default judgment of dissolution did remain viable after the first appeal and, accordingly, that the parties had not been married since July 1,1991. This had the effect of cutting off the wife’s ability to enforce temporary support arrearages which had accrued. The wife now appeals that partial summary judgment.
We reverse because the trial court has misperceived the effect of our opinion and mandate in Regante I. We intended in our first opinion to vacate the default judgment of dissolution and for the parties to return to the posture of the case previous to the final default judgment of dissolution entered July 1, 1991. Smith v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1960), and Bock v. Bock, 311 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
That is to say that all issues except one remained for disposition. These pending issues included but were not limited to whether the marriage between the parties was irretrievably broken, enforcement of temporary support arrearages, and temporary and permanent spousal and child support issues. The husband admitted that he is the father of the children involved but he contested, inter alia, in Regante I whether the parties were ever validly married. The validity of the parties’ marriage is the only issue that was finalized in Regante I contrary to the husband’s position. On remand the trial court shall proceed to adjudicate all other issues.
Reversed for further proceedings.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1960)
- Bock v. Bock, 311 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Regante v. Belsky, 600 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)