IN RE THE ESTATE OF ISAAC LITZKY, DECEASED. ROSE ZYONTZ LITZKY, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD F. ULLMAN, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ISAAC LITZKY, DECEASED, 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.
Rose Litzky appealed a probate court's determination that she was not the legal widow of Isaac Litzky and therefore not entitled to dower rights in his estate. The court held that Florida law recognizes only marriages entered into in good faith and in substantial compliance with Chapter 741, Florida Statutes, and that a ceremonial Orthodox Jewish marriage without a state marriage license does not satisfy this requirement.
The court held that Florida recognizes only one kind of marriage: one entered into in good faith and in substantial compliance with Chapter 741, Florida Statutes. A ceremonial religious marriage without a state marriage license does not satisfy this requirement and therefore does not create a valid marriage relationship.
[1] A marriage must be entered into in good faith and in substantial compliance with Chapter 741, Florida Statutes, to be legally recognized.
[2] Florida law recognizes only one type of marriage, requiring good faith and substantial compliance with statutory provisions.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 law of Florida now provides for only one kind of marriage, one which is entered into by the parties in good faith and in substantial compliance with Chapter 741”
Establishes the core holding that Florida recognizes only statutory marriages with proper compliance, rejecting alternative forms including religious ceremonies
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRose Litzky and Isaac Litzky underwent a ceremonial marriage performed by an Orthodox Jewish rabbi on May 13, 1971, and received a Hebrew marriage cer…
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 Validity Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a final judgment of the probate division of the circuit court determining that she is not the legal widow of the decedent and therefore is not entitled to take her statutory dower interest in his estate.
Briefly, the relevant facts before the probate judge revealed that the appellant, Rose Litzky, a/k/a Rose Zyontz, ceremonially married the decedent, Isaac Litz-ky, on May 13, 1971. The marriage ceremony was performed by an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, Louis Blaustein, in accordance with the rules and traditions of the Orthodox Jewish faith. The couple was issued a “Ksuba,” a Hebrew marriage certificate, by Rabbi Blaustein. However, no marriage license was obtained in accordance with the provisions of Ch. 741, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. On October 1, 1971, Isaac Litzky died intestate, and the appellant filed her notice of election to take dower. The appellant testified by deposition that the mailbox at the apartment where she and the decedent resided after the ceremonial marriage contained the names, “Mr. and Mrs. Isaac Litzky and Rose Zyontz.” In addition, she testified that she continued to accept full Social Security benefits provided her as the widow of her deceased husband, Nathan Zyontz, while she lived with the decedent. She continued to accept these benefits under the name of Zyontz even after Isaac Litzky’s death.
Based on this evidence, the court entered a finding that Fla.Stat. § 741.211 F.S.A. invalidated common-law marriages entered into after January 1, 1968 and that the wording of the statute does not indicate any legislative intention to distinguish a religious or ceremonial marriage from a common-law marriage. The court further rendered its interpretation of Section 741.-211 as invalidating all marriages which are not entered into by the parties in good faith and in substantial compliance with the laws pertaining to marriage.
We have carefully considered all points raised by the appellant in her brief, as well as the arguments of counsel, in light of the record and the applicable law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
We are in accord with the able probate judge’s opinion that the law of Florida now provides for only one kind of marriage, one which is entered into by the parties in good faith and in substantial compliance with Chapter 741. Cf. Turner v. Turner, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 787, cert. den. Fla., 201 So. 2d 233.
Therefore, for the reason stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Maal, 32 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…thereof on the marriage license, and shall transmit the same to the office of the county court judge or [*685] clerk of the circuit court from which it issued. There are two eases which examine this section. The first case, In re: Estate of Litzky, 296 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), is indistinguishable from the case before us. Rose Litzky, a/k/a Rose Zyontz, married Isaac Litzky in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony officiated by an Orthodox Rabbi and the couple was issued a “Ksuba,” a Hebrew marriage certificate,…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Shelton, 375 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…numerous cases cited therein. Although we recognize the prevailing weight of authority to be in accordance with the position urged by appellant, we do not find it necessary to adopt such a rule in deciding this case. In Estate of Litzky v. Ullman, 296 So. 2d 638 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), the Third District Court of Appeal held on dissimilar facts that the law of Florida provides for only one kind of marriage which is one entered into by the parties in good faith and in substantial compliance with Chapter 741. In t…
-
In re Est. of Rosaria Accardi v. Accardi, 305 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 296 So. 2d 638. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Anne Turner v. Turner, 192 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Sussman v. Berger, 201 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1967)
- Trace v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 201 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1967)