MARVIN P. STEWART AND R. E. L. WILSON,
v.
LULA G. STEWART
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.
Lula G. Stewart sought divorce and alimony from her husband Marvin P. Stewart, who had obtained a Nevada divorce decree in 1932 while she was institutionalized. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's award of temporary alimony and attorney's fees, holding that the valid Nevada divorce decree constituted a complete bar to the Florida action absent proper challenge to its validity.
The court held that a valid Nevada divorce decree, admitted as a matter of judicial record, constitutes a complete and perfect bar to a bill for divorce in Florida, and the trial court erred in awarding temporary alimony and attorney's fees before the foreign decree could be properly challenged and adjudicated void under appropriate legal standards.
“The answer of the defendant below, Marvin P. Stewart, was in denial of the marital relation claimed by the complainant from whom he had obtained a Nevada divorce. The answer presents matters of judicial record which, so long as they stand unchallenged, constitute a complete and perfect bar to the complainant's bill and every feature of it.”
Establishes that a valid foreign divorce decree, properly presented in the answer, bars the entire complaint absent legal challenge to its validity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarvin P. Stewart and Lula G. Stewart married in 1908. In 1925, Lula was adjudicated insane and committed to a state hospital, where she remained unti…
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 Adultery cases and more on FLexlaw
On January 8, 1908, Lula G. Stewart married Marvin ■ P. Stewart, at Emeraldo, Lake County, Florida. On May 13, 1925, she was adjudicated an insane person, and committed to the State hospital for insane at Chattahoochee, Florida, and remained there until on or about March 10, 1933, when she had her judicial sanity restored to her by decree of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida. On August 12, 1932, Marvin P. Stewart obtained an absolute divorce on the grounds of insanity, in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark. After Marvin P. Stewart had obtained a decree of divorce in Nevada he remarried. On July 26, 1933, Lula G. Stewart filed her amended bill of complaint, praying for a divorce upon the grounds' of adultery, and asking for temporary alimony, attorney’s fees, and other relief not pertinent on this appeal, the other relief being that R. E. L. Wilson held property in trust for Marvin P. Stewart, which Lula G. Stewart asked to be subjected to payment of money claimed to be due her by her husband, Marvin P. Stewart.
Marvin P. Stewart filed his answer to the amended bill of complaint on August 23, 1933, in which he denied the existence of the marriage relation between Lula G. Stewart and himself, and exhibited an exemplified transcript of the divorce proceedings in the Nevada court.
Thereafter the appellee, Lula G. Stewart, caused a hearing *160to be had for alimony and solicitor’s fees pendente lite, and on August 28, 1933, the court entered its order allowing alimony and solicitor’s fees to Lula G. Stewart.
The court in its order allowing alimony and solicitor’s fees, said:
“And it further appearing to the Court that the defendant claims to have obtained a divorce in the State of Nevada, which decree has been admitted in evidence, but the court being now of the opinion that the complainant wife ought to be permitted, at the expense of the husband, to inquire into and contest the validity of said decree, the court at this time not passing upon the validity of the Nevada decree, orders as follows:
“It Is Adjudged and Decreed that the defendant, Marvin P. Stewart, do pay to the solicitor of record for the plaintiff, within ten days, the sum of Seventy-five ($75.00) Dollars as temporary solicitor’s fee, and that beginning on the first day of September, 1933, and on each succeeding seventh day thereafter he pay to the plaintiff, Lula G. Stewart, the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, as maintenance money during the pendency of this cause.”
The answer of the defendant below, Marvin P. Stewart, was in denial of the marital relation claimed by the complainant from whom he had obtained a Nevada divorce. The answer presents matters of judicial record which, so long as they stand unchallenged, constitute a complete and perfect bar to the complainant’s bill and every feature of it. It was therefore error for the chancellor to have entered any order against the defendant below for temporary alimony or counsel fees before the court could, on appropriate allegations in the bill and upon sufficient proofs, legally determine and adjudicate the foreign divorce decree to be void for those causes which it is within the power of *161the courts of this State to take cognizance of in regard to divorce decrees, under the limitations of the Constitution of the United States requiring the courts of this State to give full faith and credit to the records and judicial proceedings of other jurisdictions'. Section 1, Article IV, U. S. Constitution.
Reversed for appropriate. proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Uhlan Stanley Newton v. Newton, 245 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1971)…Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed per curiam; 234 So. 2d 746. This Court issued writ of certiorari and took jurisdiction pursuant to F.A.R. 2.1, subd. a(5) (b), 32 F.S.A., to resolve apparent conflict with the prior decision in Stewart v. Stewart, 115 Fla. 158, 155 So. 114 (1934), in which this Court held that a trial court could not order payment of alimony or counsel’s fees until it had determined whether the Nevada divorce involved in that case was invalid. It is provided by the Federal Constitution,…
-
Bowers v. Aurora B. Bowers, 326 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1976)…sdiction of the Virginia court. In these circumstances, the final Virginia decree is entitled to full faith and credit, pursuant to United States Constitution, art. 4, § 1, Kline v. Hayman, 309 So. 2d 242 (Fla.App. 2d Dist.1975); Stewart v. Stewart, 115 Fla. 158, 155 So. 114 (1934); Annot. 58 A.L.R.2d 701 (1958), and the effect of the Virginia decree is to moot the present cause. Newton v. Newton, 245 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1971) (“A divorce decree of any state is presumed valid on its face and until same is proved…
-
Ex parte Wells, 121 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1935)…allowing temporary alimony. It is true that orders for temporary alimony may not properly be entered in cases where the defendant denies the existence of the marital relation at the time of the application, and it was so held in Stewart v. Stewart, 155 So. 114; Banks v. Banks, 42 Fla. 362, 29 So. 318; but those orders were before the Court on appeal. Petitioner remanded. Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., absent because of illness.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence