NANCY TINDELL KEENER,
v.
HORACE H. KEENER
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.
Nancy Tindell Keener sought a divorce from Horace H. Keener in Florida on the ground that he had previously obtained a divorce from her in North Carolina in 1936. The Florida Supreme Court held that a valid foreign divorce, recognized under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, cannot serve as a basis for divorce in Florida, establishing that relitigation of settled divorce decrees violates constitutional principles.
No. A valid foreign divorce, recognized under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Federal Constitution, cannot serve as a basis for divorce in Florida. The court held that if a foreign divorce is valid where secured, it will be recognized and may not be the basis for divorce in this State. Only if the foreign divorce is invalid for want of jurisdiction or other reasons may a party invoke the statute to be relieved from it.
“We do not think such an interpretation comports with reason and justice. It would sanction the relitigation of divorce proceedings long settled by final decrees of courts of competent jurisdiction; it would permit one to be harrassed for suit money in more than one State; there would be no end to divorce litigation; and the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (Section One, Article Four, Constitution of the United States) would for that case be set at naught.”
The court's rationale for rejecting a literal interpretation of the statute that would allow relitigation of foreign divorces.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHorace H. Keener and Nancy Tindell Keener were married in Kentucky in 1923 and divorced in North Carolina in 1936 at Horace's instance. Both subsequen…
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 Foreign Divorce Decrees cases and more on FLexlaw
Horace H. Keener and Nancy Tindell Keener were married in Kentucky in 1923. They were divorced in North Carolina in 1936 at the instance of Horace H. Keener. Both subsequently moved to Florida and in May, 1941, Nancy Tindell Keener filed her bill of complaint praying that she be divorced from Horace Keener, that suitable alimony be awarded her over and above that awarded for support of the two children that were the product of their union. Answer was duly filed and the issues in the cause have been made up.
The prayer for divorce was predicated on the ground recited in paragraph eight, Section 65.04 Florida Statutes' 1941, as follows: “that the defendant has obtained a divorce from complainant in any other state or county.”
Under Rule 38 of the Rules of this Court, the chancellor has certified four questions for our consideration. In Schwob Company of Florida v. Florida Industrial Commission, decided August 4, 1942, this Court defined the scope of Rule 38 and by the test there prescribed, only one of the questions cerified is within the contemplation of the rfile, viz: May the planitiff in this case be granted a divorce from the defendant on the ground that he (defendant) had secured a divorce from the complainant in another state?
We have not before been called on to define the scope of the statute brought in question though it was before us in Givens v. Givens, 121 Fla. 270, 163 So. 574; McGowin v. McGowin, 131 Fla. 247, 173 So. 927; and Maclay v. Maclay, 147 Fla. 77, 2 So. (2nd) 361. A literal interpretation might require a pronouncement to the effect that when an absolute divorce is granted to a complainant in another state and the defendant in that case becomes the complainant in a divorce suit brought in this State against the complainant in the former suit, the complainant here would be entitled to prevail.
*15We do not think such an interpretation comports with reason and justice. It would sanction the relitigation of divorce proceedings long settled by final decrees of courts of competent jurisdiction; it would permit one to be harrassed for suit money in more than one State; there would be no end to divorce litigation; and the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (Section One, Article Four, Constitution of the United States) would for that case be set at naught.
If the foreign divorce is valid in the State where secured, it will be recognized under the full faith and credit provision of the Federal Constitution and may not be basis for divorce in this State. If on the other hand, jurisdiction of the defendant was not acquired or the divorce is not effective as to both parties or is for other reasons invalid, then a complainant here would not be bound by it and would be in position to invoke the provisions of the statute in question to be relieved from it. O. B. Williams and Lillie Shaver Hendricks v. State of North Carolina, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States December 21, 1942. The validity of the North Carolina divorce is not questioned here.
Other questions propounded have reference to support for the minor children and are not within the scope of Rule 38. The law on that point is settled in State, ex rel. Airston v. Bollinger, et al., 88 Fla. 123, 101 So. 282, and like cases.
It follows that question one requires a negative answer.
WHITFIELD, BUFORD, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
BROWN, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mirras v. Mirras, 202 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…the defendant has obtained a divorce from the complainant in any other state or country(Italics ours) While the full faith and credit clause forbids relitigation by the Florida courts of a decree of divorce by a sister state (See Keener v. Keener, 152 Fla. 13, 11 So. 2d 180), the foreign decree is entitled only to the finality to which it is entitled in the state where rendered. (People of State of New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610) In the Keener case the Supreme Court clearly and incisive…
-
Overly v. Overly, 66 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1953)…n of both parties to the divorce proceeding brotight in that state. Under such circumstances the foreign decree of divorce is entitled to recognition in Florida under the full faith and credit provision of the federal Constitution. Keener v. Keener, 152 Fla. 13, 11 So. 2d 180; Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316, 161 So. 576. “A valid decree of divorce rendered in a jurisdiction other than that in which the subsequent decree is sought is a bar to the subsequent proceedings * * * and the judgment or decree fir…
-
Choucherie v. Choucherie, 120 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…inal decree granted a divorce to the husband upon the grounds set forth in section 65.04(8), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., above quoted. We hold the decree of divorce granted to the husband should be reversed. In Keener v. Keener, decided in 1941, reported at 152 Fla. 13, 11 So. 2d 180, 181, the Supreme Court of Florida pointed out that it had not heretofore been called upon to define the scope of section 65.04(8), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and the limits of this section were delineated as follows: “A literal interpretati…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Alexander J. Airston v. Bollinger, 88 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1924)
- Darwin C. Givens v. Givens, 121 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1935)
- Fenton C. Maclay v. Maclay, 147 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1941)
- Sand v. Freelund, 131 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1937)