HECTOR BRYANT, APPELLANT,
v.
ELLA BRYANT, 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.
Hector Bryant appealed a chancellor's order vacating a divorce decree and dismissing the original bill. The Florida Supreme Court held that while a divorce decree obtained through false jurisdictional allegations is voidable (not void), the chancellor erred by summarily dismissing the petition without proper procedural inquiry into whether Bryant showed deceit, surprise, irregularity, and a meritorious defense.
A decree obtained through wrongfully invoked jurisdiction based on false jurisdictional facts is voidable, not void, when the jurisdictional defect appears only from matters outside the record. A chancellor must not summarily dispose of petitions to set aside final divorce decrees but must require the petitioner to show deceit, surprise, irregularity, bona fides, reasonable diligence, and a meritorious defense through proper proceedings.
“Where the jurisdiction of a court of equity has been wrongfully invoked and a final decree obtained upon false allegations of jurisdictional facts, the defendant, being free from laches, may obtain relief by way of motion to vacate such final decree and a decree pro confesso upon which it is based.”
Establishes the right to challenge a decree obtained through false jurisdictional allegations and the distinction between void and voidable decrees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final decree of divorce was obtained in an equity court. Ella Bryant later petitioned to vacate the decree, alleging that the court lacked jurisdict…
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 Matters Dehors The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
Where the jurisdiction of a court of equity has been wrongfully invoked and a final decree obtained upon false allegations of jurisdictional facts, the defendant, being free from laches, may obtain relief by way of motion to vacate such final decree and a decree pro confesso upon which it is based. The decree rendered in such a case, being valid on its face, where there is nothing in *180the record showing it otherwise, is not void but merely voidable, as where the facts showing the lack of jurisdiction can only be established by matters dehors the record. Sawyer v. Gustason, 96 Fla. 6, 118 So. 57.
In this ease the decree was voidable but not void, because the lack of jurisdiction only- appears from matters dehors the record alleged by the defendant in her petition to vacate the decree, not on the face of the record of the original proceeding when final decree was entered.
In such a situation the defendant should show by his motion, deceit, surprise or irregularity in obtaining the decree and that defendant has acted bona fide and with reasonable diligence and has a meritorious defense. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196, 125 So. 694; Sawyer v. Gustason, supra.
In entertaining and deciding petitions to set aside final decrees of divorce, which if granted may materially affect personal and property rights of third parties, acquired on the strength of the apparent validity of the decree obtained, the Chancellor should not summarily dispose of the matter by ordering the petition to be taken as confessed without proof, and by ordering the final decree vacated and original bill for divorce summarily dismissed, but should dispose of the matter in an orderly way according to the established practice laid down by this court to be followed in such cases.
The decree appealed from is reversed for appropriate proceedings.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Davis, J. J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Demarigny v. Demarigny, 43 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1949)…which appears, upon the record of the proceedings in the cause in which it was entered, to be valid in every respect. Under such circumstances a final decree is at most voidable only. Ponder v. Moseley, 2 Fla. 207, 48 Am.Dec. 194; Bryant v. Bryant, 101 Fla. 179, 133 So. 635. It is necessary in this case in order for the appellant-petitioner to show the invalidity of the final decree of divorce for her to bring before the court matters which are dehors the record. We have held many times that this may not b…
-
State Ex Rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1942)…cree "was evidently treated by the court below as an original bill in the nature of a bill of review, or as an original bill to impeach the former decree for fraud." The other authority cited in Kurtz v. Kurtz, supra, was Bryant *Page 628 v. Bryant, 101 Fla. 179, 133 So. 635. This case likewise is distinguishable for the court wrote that "the defendant should show by his motion, deceit, surprise, or irregularity in obtaining the decree, and that defendant has acted bona fide and with reasonable diligence, a…
-
Bemis v. Loftin, 127 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1937)…upon decrees of courts of chancery, when the decrees are valid on their face, must be brought before the particular court and in the particular jurisdiction where the challenged decree was entered in the first place. Bryant v. Bryant, 101 Fla. 179, 133 Sou. Rep. 635; Cone v. Cone, 102 Fla. 793, 136 Sou. Rep. 466; State, ex rel. Willys, v. Chillingworth, Judge, 124 Fla. 274, 168 Sou. Rep. 249. Compare Miami Bank & Trust Co. v. Mahlstedt, 107 Fla. 282, 144 Sou. Rep. 659; Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865, 115 Sou. 75…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNeil v. Jenkins-McNeil (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Frederic G. Chisholm v. Chisholm, 98 Fla. 1196 (Fla. 1929)
- Sawyer v. Gustason, 96 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1928)