SARAH BINDER WORMAN
v.
SAMUEL WORMAN
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.
Sarah Binder Worman sought alimony, suit money, and counsel fees in her divorce from Samuel Worman, but the trial court denied these claims. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Worman was estopped from seeking relief because she had accepted monthly support payments under a written settlement agreement for over nine years without complaint.
The court affirmed the denial of alimony, suit money, and counsel fees, holding that the complainant is estopped from setting up any claim against the defendant after accepting the settlement agreement's provisions for more than nine years.
“Whether the contract was good or bad in law the complainant cannot accept its provisions in her behalf for more than nine years and then be heard by this Court to complain of its provisions.”
Establishes the core principle that a party cannot accept benefits under an agreement for years and then challenge it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Worman married Rose in Poland in 1912, immigrated to the United States, and lost contact with her. Believing Rose was dead, he married Sarah Bi…
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 Validity Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appearance of this case here. See Worman v. Worman, 113 Fla. 233, 152 So. 435, where a detailed statement of the facts out of which it grew will be found.
The present appeal is from a final decree granting the complainant a divorce, but denying her any relief for ali*472mony, suit money, or counsel fees. Was such a denial erroneous, is the question we are called on to answer.
It appears that the defendant, Samuel Worman, married one, Rose Worman, in Poland, Russia, in 1912. He later immigrated to this country and lost trace or connection with his wife. On being assured that she had died, in 1917 he married the complainant, Sarah Binder Worman, in Philadelphia. Several years after his second marriage the defendant learned that his first wifej Rose Worman, was still living in Russia. He verified this information, sent for her, and renewed the marital relation with her.
At the time defendant renewed the marital state with Rose Worman he' separ'ated. from Sarah Binder Worman and made a satisfactory settlement with her for the support of their child which was the product of said marriage and for alimony. Some years later an additional amount was paid to-the complainant and the-monthly payments made to her for the support of their child was increased. It was definitely understood between them that such páyments should be in lieu of alimony, suit money, and counsel’s fees, such understanding being reduced to writing under seal. . •
For all the record discloses the defendant has lived up to his contract with the complainant and has up to the present continued to contribute regularly to the support of his minor child the amounts agreed to and more, which amounts have been accepted by complainant.
It appears that the agreement between complainant and defendant was fairly entered into, there is no suggestion of fraud or overreaching on the part of either. Both parties appear to have been satisfied with it at the .time and the complainant accepted payments under it for nine years or more.
*473In this situation we express no opinion as to the contract or the validity of the second marriage. Whether the contract was good or bad in law the complainant cannot accept its provisions in her behalf for more than nine years and then be heard by this Court to complain,of its provisions.
On the showing made here the complainant is estopped to set up any claim against the defendant, so the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.'
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woodward v. Woodward, 122 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1935)…rney’s fees, suit money and alimony pending appeal is therefore upon the appellant, and such burden must be met before an allowance for either of such purposes will be ordered. Courtney v. Courtney, 108 Fla. 276, 146 Sou. Rep. 229; Worman v. Worman, 118 Fla. 471, 159 Sou. Rep. 577; Frohock v. Frohock, 117 Fla. 603, 158 Sou. Rep. 106; Schaefer v. Schaefer, 117 Fla. 103, 157 Sou. Rep. 331; McMillan v. McMillan, 114 Fla. 763, 154 Sou. Rep. 850. In Schaefer v. Schaefer, supra, a decree of divorce granted again…
-
Todd v. Todd, 151 Fla. 134 (Fla. 1942)…, is in poor grace to confess his wrongdoing and say a court of equity is powerless to require him to bear the burden of restoring the former status. This question was touched upon in Worman v. Worman, 113 Fla. 233, 152 So. 435; and the same case in 118 Fla. 471, 159 So. 677. The order we are reviewing here is in relation to temporary relief and beyond that we make no expression. It is the order that certiorari issue and the challenged order is quashed. BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD and BUFORD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Worman v. Worman, 113 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1933)