BETTY JO CHAPIN, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT NAURISON, 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.
Betty Jo Chapin sought damages for her ex-husband Herbert Naurison's refusal to honor a $600,000 personal check he had given her during their marriage. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding that the check issue had been resolved in the prior divorce judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a final dissolution judgment settles all property rights and bars subsequent actions on property claims.
No. A final dissolution of marriage judgment that has acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights settles all property rights of the parties and bars any subsequent action by either party to determine property rights. The check claim was raised at the dissolution hearing, disposed of adversely to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's failure to appeal the judgment bars a subsequent separate action on the claim.
[1] A final judgment dissolving a marriage settles all property rights of the parties and bars subsequent actions to determine those rights, provided the court had jurisdicti…
[2] A party's failure to appeal an adverse ruling on a property claim within a dissolution of marriage judgment bars them from bringing a separate action on that claim.
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“where the court has acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights, a final dissolution of marriage judgment settles all property rights of the parties and bars any action thereafter by either party to determine property rights”
Establishes the controlling legal rule that final divorce judgments are conclusive on all property rights and prevent subsequent litigation of property claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff and defendant were married, divorced, and remarried. During the second marriage on December 1, 1969, Naurison gave Chapin a personal check f…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff seeks reversal of a summary final judgment in favor of her ex-husband in an action to recover damages for his refusal to honor a $600,000 personal check.
Plaintiff Betty Jo Chapin and defendant Herbert Naurison were married on January 26, 1968. In early 1969 they were divorced and within three months remarried. During the course of the second marriage, on December 1, 1969 Herb asked Betty if she wanted some money. Upon Betty’s replying in the affirmative, Herb made out a check for $600,000 to Betty Chapin as payee. On several occasions while the parties were still married, Betty presented the check for payment which was refused.
On October 21, 1970 Betty filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and at the hearing the issue of payment of the $600,000 check was raised and Herb, a man of modest means, claimed it was a joke. The marriage was dissolved on June 14, 1971 and Betty awarded $47,000 as lump sum alimony, a 1969 Dodge automobile and $4,500 in attorney’s fees. After entry of the June 14 judgment, Betty, on October 4, deposited the check in the United National Bank of Dadeland for collection and the check was returned uncollected. Thereupon, Betty filed suit against Herb for $600,000 in damages plus interest. Herb filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Betty’s rights, if any, with respect to the check had been disposed of by the 1971 final judgment.
The trial court granted the motion.
We affirm.
The rule is established that where the court has acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights, a final disso lution of marriage judgment settles all property rights of the parties and bars any action thereafter by either party to determine property rights. Simon v. Simon, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 780 and cases cited therein. The check was introduced into evidence and the issue of its validity was raised at the dissolution of marriage hearing. The final dissolution of marriage judgment disposed of the issue of the check claim adversely to Betty and if she intended to contest the judgment, she had a right of appeal. Having failed to do so, she is now barred from bringing a separate action on the claim.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Fisher, 391 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…of that judgment and the trial court had no authority to review it. Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Benson v. Benson, 369 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Rothenheber v. Jessup, 360 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Chapin v. Naurison, 325 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). [*812] The order modifying the final judgment (which order is entitled “Final Judgment” and was rendered October 1, 1979) is reversed and this cause is remanded for the assessment of attorney’s fees for appellant’s attorney at th…
Authorities Cited
- Simon v. Simon, 293 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)