ALICE BROWNE NUCKOLS, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM P. NUCKOLS, 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.
A party asserting the privilege against self-incrimination in civil litigation cannot seek affirmative relief through a counterclaim.
A wife sued for separate maintenance, and the husband counterclaimed for divorce. During discovery, the husband asserted his privilege against self-in…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
A wife sued her husband for separate maintenance. He counterclaimed against her seeking affirmative relief in the form of a divorce. A contested final hearing resulted in a decree of divorce entered upon the husband’s counterclaim. The wife, plaintiff in the trial court, brings this appeal.
In the course of the final hearing and during pre-trial discovery efforts the husband refused to answer questions asked of him concerning an improper relationship between the husband and a woman other than his wife by successfully asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. This was accomplished without imposition of penalty.
We hold, in answer to the point raised by the wife in this appellate proceeding, that, when her husband filed his counterclaim seeking independent relief beneficial to him, he became an actor, a profiteer of the judicial machinery and process, so as to bring him within the doctrine of the cases of Stockham v. Stockham, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 320, 4 A.L.R.3d 539; Lund v. Lund, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 873. See also Annotation, 4 A.L.R.3d 545. That doctrine is to the effect that, while one may in civil litigation exercise his privilege against self-incrimination, if he does choose to do so, the court’s doors will be shut to him as concerns his right to obtain relief or remedy based on his claim or action.
This decision being dispositive in requiring a reversal, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the remaining points on appeal.
This cause is reversed and remanded with directions to require the husband to answer the disputed questions upon penalty of having his counterclaim stricken in the event he refused to do so.
Reversed.
SMITH, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mohumman Iqbal Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ally the defendant due to the quirk of an interpleader action, filed the original claim for the proceeds. To allow him to prevail because he is the defendant in the interpleader action would be to elevate form over substance. See Nuckols v. Nuckols, 189 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (defendant husband sued by wife for separate maintenance, who claimed the privilege while seeking affirmative action by counterclaiming for divorce, was denied relief and characterized by court as “a profiteer of the judicia…
-
Abbate v. Nolan, 228 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…mand with instructions for entry of an order consistent herewith. Reversed and remanded. REED, J., concurs. CROSS, C. J., concurs in conclusion. . Stockham v. Stockham, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 320, 4 A.L.R.3rd 539; Nuckols v. Nuckols, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 832; but see Simkins v. Simkins, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 724, reversing an order requiring husband to testify on discovery as to acts of adultery even though he filed suit for divorce. . McKelvey v. Freeport Housing Authority, 1961, 29 Misc.2d 140, 22…
-
Christa Sanford v. Sanford, 508 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…d previously earned on assets kept in Switzerland. We recognize that the refusal of a party to testify will generally result in a waiver. Minor v. Minor, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1970); Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So. 2d 320 (Fla.1964); Nuckols v. Nuckols, 189 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Waskin v. Waskin, 484 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). However, in each of these cases the privilege was raised with respect to an important issue. Here the invocation was totally unrelated to the issues with respect to which the…
Authorities Cited
- Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1964)
- Lund v. Lund, 161 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)