DWAYNE COX, APPELLANT,
v.
HORTENSIA POW, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's decree enforcing a foreign judgment for child support. The court held that Florida courts should enforce such foreign decrees based on comity.
Yes, a Florida court can and should enforce a foreign country's decree ordering child support payments, based on the principle of comity.
“On the proceeding filed on behalf of the mother subsequently in Dade County, Florida, where appellant then was residing, a decree was entered which recognized his status as parent of the child and obligation for child support under the foreign judgment, and ordered him to proceed with payment of such child support in the amount of $40 per month.”
Describes the lower court's action in enforcing the foreign judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDwayne Cox was adjudicated the father of a child and ordered to pay child support in the Dominican Republic. He appealed this judgment, and it was aff…
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 Child Support Obligation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Dwayne Cox seeks reversal of a decree of the circuit court of Dade County, entered on April 5, 1965, ordering him thereafter to pay child support.
The issue as to his parentage of the child was tried in an action between the parties in the Dominican Republic, resulting in an adjudication that Dwayne Cox was the father of the child and legally obligated for its support, with an order to pay child support in the amount of $40 per month. He appealed the judgment in that jurisdiction, and it was affirmed. On the proceeding filed on behalf of the mother subsequently in Dade County, Florida, where appellant then was residing, a decree was entered which recognized his status as parent of the child and obligation for child support under the foreign judgment, and ordered him to proceed with payment of such child support in the amount of $40 per month.
In so holding the chancellor was not in error. See McDuffie v. McDuffie, 155 Fla. 63, 19 So.2d 511 (following Fanchier v. Gammill, 148 Miss. 723, 114 So. 813);. Sackler v. Sackler, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 292; Haas v. Haas, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 640; Miller v. Miller, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 386. On authority of the cited cases it was eminently correct for the Florida court, on the basis of comity, to apply its equitable processes and remedies to enforce the foreign decree for child support by requiring the father of the child to make such-support payments in the future.
We have considered the several contentions on which the appellant seeks reversal of the order appealed from, and conclude no reversible error has been made to appear.
Affirmed.
(dissenting).
In my view, the cases cited by the majority do not reach the issue before us because they involved a decree from a sister state.
The foreign judgment, upon which the appellee relies to establish appellant’s duty to support her child, is penal. The judgment found that appellant was the father *32of the child, sentenced him to two years in the workhouse, and ordered that he pay her forty Dominican dollars per month. The principle of comity should not be invoked to give effect to judgments of this nature because they are entered by the foreign country while exercising its police regulations. See In re Neidnig’s Estate, 1908, 123 App.Div. 894, 108 N.Y.S. 478; anno., 16 A.L.R.2d 1098, 1103, § 3; and 10 Am.Jur.2d, Bastards, § 130. The primary purpose of the Dominican proceeding was apparently punishment — not compensation. One need only look to the Dominican proceeding, as related by the appellee upon deposition, to realize the wisdom of this policy.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
TILLMAN PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
In my view, the cases cited by the majority do not reach the issue before us because they involved a decree from a sister state.
The foreign judgment, upon which the appellee relies to establish appellant’s duty to support her child, is penal. The judgment found that appellant was the father of the child, sentenced him to two years in the workhouse, and ordered that he pay her forty Dominican dollars per month. The principle of comity should not be invoked to give effect to judgments of this nature because they are entered by the foreign country while exercising its police regulations. See In re Neidnig’s Estate, 1908, 123 App.Div. 894, 108 N.Y.S. 478; anno., 16 A.L.R.2d 1098, 1103, § 3; and 10 Am.Jur.2d, Bastards, § 130. The primary purpose of the Dominican proceeding was apparently punishment — not compensation. One need only look to the Dominican proceeding, as related by the appellee upon deposition, to realize the wisdom of this policy.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Heritage Corp. OF S. Fla. v. Wm. A. Rivas, 289 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…n, that court’s determination becomes res judicata upon the issue and is protected by the full faith and credit clause of Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Haas v. Haas, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 640, 642; see also Cox v. Pow, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 31. The full faith and credit clause is applicable to the territorial courts of Puerto Rico like any other state. Americana of Puerto Rico v. Kaplus, 368 F. 2d 431 (3rd Cir. 1966). The record in this case reflects that the appellant submitted itself t…
-
D. R.-T. v. O. M., 244 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…iew of the prematurity of the allowance while the boy is in college, and with that portion of his opinion I concur. Platt, Durden and Boyle, supra, add no visible support to his opinion, nor do they draw objection from me. Cox v. Pow, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So. 2d 31, enforced a Dominican judgment in a paternity action to the same extent originally ordered, there being no apparent difference in duration. Sackler v. Sackler, Fla. 1950, 47 So. 2d 292, recognizes the obligation of Florida courts to honor foreign al…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- MRS. Hattie Louise McDUFFIE v. McDuffie, 155 Fla. 63 (Fla. 1944)
- Miller v. Miller, 105 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)