VIRGINIA COX SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
FARRELL M. SMITH, 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 court held that a chancellor may consider equitable defenses when enforcing a foreign decree and can refuse to entertain a modification motion before the foreign decree is established.
The appellant sought to establish a Georgia divorce decree in Florida, recover arrearages, and increase child support. The chancellor established the …
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 Equitable Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties to this cause were divorced in the State of Georgia. As a part of the final decree, there was an agreement incorporated providing for child support and other matters.
The appellant brought the instant action in the Circuit Court of Dade County, seeking to establish the Georgia decree to recover arrearages thereunder and sought a modification by increasing the amount of support payments. Following a final hearing, the chancellor established the decree, refused to award a judgment for arrearages, and required the appellee to make periodic support payments in accordance with the terms of the original decree. The appellant appeals and seeks reversal because of the failure of the chancellor to award a judgment for the arrearages and to entertain, during the course of the proceedings, a motion to increase the amount of support. We affirm.
In determining whether arrear-ages should be awarded under a proceeding to enforce a foreign decree, the chancellor was entitled to consider equitable defenses, such as a subsequent modification between the parties. See: Sackler v. Sackler, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 292, 18 A.L.R.2d 856; Haas v. Haas, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 640; Kramer v. Kramer, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 586. No *17error is found in the chancellor’s refusing to entertain the motion to modify by increasing the amount of support during the pendency of the case, because at the time it was presented the foreign decree had not been established in this State. Of course, this would not prevent the appellant from seeking modification [pursuant to the provisions of § 65.15 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.] of the decree as ultimately rendered by the chancellor, provided the appellant justifies the need for change. See: Terry v. Terry, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 890; Simon v. Simon, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 849; Smith v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 351; § 65.15 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, etc., § 198 et seq.
Therefore, the decree is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morin v. Morin, 466 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…udgment. We disagree. In determining whether arrearages should be awarded in a proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment, the trial court is entitled to consider equitable defenses. Stokes v. Crews, 265 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Smith v. Smith, 197 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Mr. Morin presented sufficient evidence from which the trial court could properly find an inability on Mr. Morin’s part to meet the demands placed upon him by the Massachusetts judgment. Furthermore, there exists no order or judg…
-
Division OF Administration v. Saemann, 399 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…position in this regard, recognizing as we do that the ruling in question pulled the rug from under the Department’s case. However, in view of the sound discretion vested in the trial court in matters of this nature (see, e. g., Upchurch v. Barnes, 197 So. 2d 16 [Fla. 4th DCA 1967]), we are unable to find an abuse thereof. We simply are unable to characterize the trial judge’s ruling as arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, nor can we say that no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial judge…
-
Ruscoe v. Ruscoe, 327 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…to the Circuit Court of Volusia County pursuant to Rule 1.060(b) RCP. Reversed and remanded. WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. . The propriety of seeking both types of relief at the same time appears to have been questioned in Smith v. Smith, 197 So. 2d 16 (3rd DCA Fla.1967), wherein it was held that the chancellor in an action to establish a foreign decree did not err in refusing to entertain a motion to modify that decree during the pendency of the case, “because at the time it [the motion] was pres…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simon v. Simon, 155 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Terry v. Gertrude S. Terry, 126 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Smith v. Smith, 177 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Stafford B. Beach and John B. Beach v. City OF W. Palm Beach, 146 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Kramer v. Kramer, 146 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)