JEAN M. BACK, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN L. BACK, 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 the chancellor should have heard testimony regarding the appellant's competency and voluntariness in entering the property settlement.
Appellant attempted to repudiate a property settlement entered into at the end of a divorce hearing, claiming she did not enter it competently, freely…
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.
This appeal arises from a divorce action. At the end of the hearing appellant’s attorney prevailed upon appellant to enter into a property settlement. Subsequently, appellant tried to repudiate the settlement, saying she did not enter into it competently, freely and voluntarily and with an understanding and comprehension of the terms thereof.
Appellant retained another attorney in order to try to have the final judgment of divorce set aside. Her new attorney tried to introduce evidence going to appellant’s state of mind at the time she entered the previous settlement, but the chancellor refused to hear this evidence.
We feel the chancellor should have heard testimony regarding whether appellant knowingly, competently, freely and voluntarily entered the previous settlement. This case is therefore remanded to the trial court with instructions to hear such testimony and determine whether or not grounds exist to set aside the final judgment of divorce.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Ragano, 403 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1981)…rote back on March 24, 1971, “I will look to you for no additional fee. If there are any additional fees to be paid, they will be paid by your husband.” The appeal resulted in a remand for further proceedings at the trial court level. Back v. Back, 258 So. 2d 20 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). The decision was rendered on February 16, 1972. The respondent testified that some time after the remand, he and Mrs. Back orally agreed that he would receive further fee payments from her, and that he would take the payments from…