TSAPELAS
v.
TSAPELAS
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.
In this Florida Supreme Court case, a husband sought annulment of his marriage based on the wife's alleged fraudulent concealment of tuberculosis. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the annulment, holding that fraud is not recognized as a ground for annulment in Florida and that the evidence presented did not meet the required standard of proof.
The court affirmed the denial of the annulment, holding that fraud is not recognized as a ground for annulment in Florida, and alternatively, that the evidence did not convincingly prove the husband's allegations. The court found the evidence was not sufficiently clear regarding the wife's tuberculosis condition at the time of marriage or whether the husband made efforts to learn of her health.
“It is an old saying that fraud vitiates all contracts. It is not a ground for divorce in this state and we are cited to no case in which divorce or annulment of the marriage contract was predicated on it.”
The court establishes that while fraud generally vitiates contracts, it is not recognized as a ground for annulment under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant married the appellee, a woman who came from Greece to marry him on the recommendation of a mutual friend. After marriage, the appellant …
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
[*316] TERRELL, Justice.
Appellant filed a complaint in the appropriate court seeking annulment of his marriage to appellee on the ground of fraud, in that she concealed the fact that she was a victim of tuberculosis at the time of their marriage, that plaintiff did not know the state of appellee’s health at the time, that she concealed it from him, for the purpose of inducing him to marry her, which he would not have done if he had known her affliction and that he left her as soon as he learned her Condition. Service was made by publication, a decree pro confesso was entered, a special examiner was appointed who took testimony and on final hearing the chancellor denied the annulment and dismissed the bill with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed.
The only point for determination is whether or not the chancellor committed error in refusing to annul the marriage.
It is an old saying that fraud vitiates all contracts. It is not a ground for divorce in this state and we are cited to no case in which divorce or annulment of the marriage contract was predicated on it. In fact, in the state of the record we are riot required to and do not adjudicate 'that question. The chancellor found that the evidence did not prove his charges made iri the complaint by convincing evidence and denied the relief prayed for. We have examined the evidence and are not convinced that the chancellor should be reversed. There is evidence which shows that defendant had pulmonary tuberculosis but how well advanced is not shown. As to what her condition was at the time of the marriage or whether plaintiff made any effort to find out her condition before the marriage, the evidence is not convincing. It is shown that she came to this country from Greece to marry appellant on the recommendation of a mutual friend and the bans were announced forthwith. In horse trading parlance they took each other at arms length for “better or worse” and with equally as much sanctity.. Even if we were convinced that a valid ground for annulment existed, there is not sufficient showing to reverse the chancellor.'
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS,' JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)….g., Cressy v. Republic Creosoting Co., 108 Minn. 349, 122 N.W. 484 (1909); Allertz v. Hankins, 102 Neb. 202, 166 N.W. 608 (1918); Hall v. Smathers, 240 N.Y. 486, 148 N.E. 654 (1925); Livingston v. Gennert, 165 N.Y.S. 989 (1917), cited in Mallory at 69 So. 2d 315. . Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 317, provides as follows: Section 317. Duty of Master to Control Conduct of Servant. A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control his servant while acting outside the course of his empl…