LORETTA WERTHEIM, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEX WERTHEIM, 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 wife's alimony was terminated when she remarried in 1971, but the subsequent marriage was annulled as void ab initio. The trial court refused to reinstate her alimony, finding insufficient evidence that the marriage was bigamous. The appellate court reversed, holding that a void marriage cannot alter legal rights and remanding for reinstatement of alimony.
A bigamous marriage under Florida law is void and therefore ineffective to alter the legal rights of the parties. The trial court erred in refusing to reinstate alimony based on its inquiry into the basis for the annulment. The alimony must be reinstated and child support reconsidered.
[1] A marriage declared void ab initio by a court cannot alter the legal rights of parties in a prior divorce proceeding.
[2] A trial court cannot look behind a final judgment of annulment to question the basis of the annulment when determining the reinstatement of alimony.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The situation, in our opinion, should be governed by the simpler and well established principle that a bigamous marriage under our law is void and therefore ineffective to alter the legal rights of the parties involved in this controversy”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that void marriages cannot alter legal rights, supporting reinstatement of alimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband and wife were divorced in 1963, with the husband ordered to pay alimony and child support. In February 1971, the wife married Stridel, and…
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 Annulment Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for review of the trial court’s order refusing to reinstate the wife’s alimony after an annulment of a subsequent marriage. We reverse with instructions.
The husband and wife were divorced in 1963. The husband was required to pay alimony and child support for two children. In February of 1971, the wife went through a marriage ceremony with one Stridel, the husband ceased alimony payments but continued child support. In May of 1971, the wife sought to have the marriage to Stridel annulled. Stridel was served, filed no answer and a default was entered. In August a final judgment was entered declaring the February marriage void ab initio.
In September of 1971, the wife petitioned in the original divorce proceeding for restoration of alimony and increase in child support.
The trial court made a finding of fact that “no competent evidence was presented to this court to substantiate the allegations made by the plaintiff that the annulment entered by the court was based on a bigamous marriage”. The court also found the children’s needs and the husband’s ability justified an increase in child support. The trial court’s order on said petition denied restoration of alimony but increased child support 50% plus all medical expenses of the two children.
*724The wife appeals that portion of the order denying restoration of her alimony and raises four points for review. The first point questions the authority of the trial judge to look behind a final judgment of annulment declaring a marriage void. We feel this point is dispositive of the cause so we go no further.
Our Supreme Court in Reese v. Reese, 192 So.2d 1, said “The situation, in our opinion, should be governed by the simpler and well established principle that a bigamous marriage under our law is void and therefore ineffective to alter the legal rights of the parties involved in this controversy”.
The cause is remanded for reinstatement of the alimony and reconsideration of child support in that the failure to reinstate alimony may have been considered in increasing said support.
It is so ordered.