CHARLES MURRAY GRATZ
v.
BERNICE WEST GRATZ
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.
In this 1939 Florida divorce case, the court affirmed a decree granting the wife a divorce based on extreme cruelty, establishing that cruelty in Florida law need not involve actual bodily harm but rather can encompass conduct calculated to torture mental or emotional nature. The court also upheld the wife's right to establish a separate domicile in Florida to bring a divorce suit, rejecting the husband's argument that a subsequent New York separation decree divested Florida jurisdiction.
The court held that the allegations of extreme cruelty were substantiated by the evidence; that cruelty need not involve actual bodily harm but can consist of conduct calculated to torture the mental or emotional nature and affect bodily health, including maligning a spouse's relatives; that the wife had the right to adopt a domicile in Florida separate from her husband's to bring a divorce suit; and that a subsequent New York separation decree did not divest Florida's jurisdiction once the court had first acquired it.
“Cruelty need not be actual bodily harm, but it is enough to sustain the charge where it is established that there was a course of conduct on the part of the defendant calculated to torture "the mental or emotional nature" and which would "go to the extent of affecting bodily health."”
Establishes the legal standard for extreme cruelty in Florida divorce law, encompassing mental and emotional harm.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Murray Gratz and Bernice West Gratz were married. During their marriage, the husband repeatedly made humiliating and profane statements about …
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 Extreme Cruelty cases and more on FLexlaw
This case was before this Court on an appeal from an order denying motions to strike and to dismiss the bill of complaint. The pleading was held sufficient by decision of this court, Gratz v. Gratz, 127 Fla. 605, 173 South. Rep. 442.
From the very lucid presentation of the facts and law of the case by counsel for the two litigants, we feel that the allegations of the bill, particularly with reference to the charge of extreme cruelty, have been substantiated by the evidence.
Cruelty need not be actual bodily harm, but it is enough to sustain the charge where it is established that there was a course of conduct on the part of the defendant calculated to torture “the mental or emotional nature” and which would “go to the extent of affecting bodily health.” One form of misconduct, which may form the basis of such an averment, is the maligning of near relatives held-dear by the complaining party. Williams v. Williams, 23 Fla. 324, 2 South. Rep. 768; Donald v. Donald, 21 Fla. 571, text 574.
There seems to have been an abundance of testimony to show repeated declarations by the appellant execrating appellee’s parents, and applying to them humiliating and profane epithets. These expressions, at a time when the domestic atmosphere was far from tranquil, were obviously intended to injure her sensibilities and cause her mental distress.
Appellant assumes that the wife could not establish a residence in Florida and thus confer jurisdiction on the courts here while her husband was domiciled in New York, and adds that an amendment to the bill, setting out that subsequent to the filing of the original bill he had obtained a decree of separation in New York, would not confer this jurisdiction.
*711We see no relevancy of the action of the New York Court to the suit pending here.
The wife could adojpt a domicile other than her husband’s in the circumstances reflected by this record, that is, to bring suit for divorce, and her marital status would be governed by the law of' the domicile acquired, Herron v. Passailaigue, 92 Fla. 818, 110 South. Rep. 539. Having this right it was unimportant that after suit was instituted here and before the amended bill was filed, the husband sought and obtained a decree in the state of his residence. - ‘ “It would be irrational and absurd to say that the court which had first acquired jurisdiction should arrest its proceedings because the court of another government having concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject matter and parties had subsequently attempted to take jurisdiction of the case.” Wood v. Lake, 13 Wis. 84, text 94; Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Bradshaw, 37 Old. 317, 132 Pac. Rep. 327, text 328.
We are inclined to view that the provision in the final .decree affecting the care of the minor male child of the parties should be made more liberal in favor of the appellant as the child becomes' older, and apparently this was the opinion of the chancellor when he expressly restrained jurisdiction for the purpose of further regulating such custody. As the circumstances of the child, or those of his parents, change, the court will always be open to entertain petitions for orders to preserve the welfare of the minor. In the present status of the case there seems no reason to place the stamp of impropriety on what the court has done.
The decree is affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Whitfield, concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1937 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Windham v. Windham, 144 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1940)…s had no knowledge of matrimonial disturbances. The chancellor below reconciled these disputes an'd conflicts in the testimony by entering the decree assigned as error here. We fail to find merit in this assignment. See Gratz v. Gratz, 137 Fla. 709, 188 So. 580; Henderson v. Henderson, 137 Fla. 770, 189 So. 24. There is a presumption in law an'd equity as to the correctness of the ruling of the lower court and the burden here was on the appellant to show that error had been committed. We fail to find an ab…
-
Frank v. Belmont Frank, 75 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1954)…of instituting a divorce action) separate from that of her husband so long as she continues to live with him, but that she may do so if she separates from him for just cause. Curley v. Curley, 144 Fla. 728, 198 So. 584; Gratz v. Gratz, 137 Fla. 709, 188 So. 580; Edmundson v. Edmundson, 133 Fla. 703, 182 So. 824; Bowmall v. Bowmall, 127 Fla. 747, 174 So. 14; Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483. The reason for such ruling is that the law recognizes the husband as the head of the family and the reside…
-
Cruickshank v. Cruickshank, 420 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…r shown abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. The wife’s contention that the Florida court should have declined jurisdiction in deference to the prior and concurrent jurisdiction of the Illinois court is without merit. Gratz v. Gratz, 188 So. 580 (Fla.1939). [*916] A motion for marriage counseling is within the sound discretion of the court. Hair v. Hair, 402 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The wife has not shown an abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and THOMPSON,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Herron v. Emil E. Passailaigue, 92 Fla. 818 (Fla. 1926)
- Williams v. Williams, 23 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1887)
- Donald v. Donald, 21 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1885)
- Horn v. State, 2 So. 768 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916)
- Gratz v. Gratz, 127 Fla. 605 (Fla. 1937)