RUTH GROSS
v.
L. GROSS, ALSO KNOWN AS LEONARD H. GROSS
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.
Ruth Gross sought to annul a property settlement agreement incorporated into her divorce decree, alleging fraud and deceit by her husband. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding that she failed to meet her burden of proving fraud by competent evidence.
Ruth Gross failed to carry her burden of proof to establish fraud, deceit, artifice or trickery by competent evidence. Additionally, the proper procedure to vacate a final decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud was through a bill of complaint rather than the petition filed in this case.
“Courts of equity have the power and jurisdiction to grant relief and set aside and annul judgments and decrees obtained by fraud, deceit, artifice or trickery.”
Establishes the equitable power to set aside decrees but only upon proof of fraud or similar misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonard and Ruth Gross, a married couple, executed a written property settlement agreement in contemplation of divorce in August 1943. The agreement w…
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.
Leonard H. Gross and Ruth Gross, husband and wife, during August, 1943, in contemplation of divorce, agreed upon a division of their accumulated property. This agreement was reduced to writing and signed by each of them! Pursuant thereto a divorce suit was instituted in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. The appellant here (the wife) was the plaintiff in this suit and she was awarded a decree of divorce and made a part of the decree was the property settlement agreement of the parties. This decree is dated August 13, 1943.
On September 16, 1943, Ruth Gross filed a petition to annul, vacate and set aside that portion of the final decree relating to the property settlement, expressed by the written stipulations of the parties, and embodied in the final decree awarding divorce. The case at bar is patterned after our holding in Miller v. Miller, 149 Fla. 722, 7 So. (2nd) 9.
The controlling principle in Miller v. Miller, supra, is viz:
“Courts of equity have the power and jurisdiction to grant relief and set aside and annul judgments and decrees obtained by fraud, deceit, artifice or trickery. See Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464, 156 So. 893. The burden of proof under the law was on the plaintiff, Blanche H. Miller, to establish by competent evidence fraud, deceit, duress, coercion or overreaching on the part of Raymond F. Miller when obtaining an alimony settlement with her. Agreements were made in good faith, free from fraud, deceit or trickery relating to alimony between husband and *651wife, or the adjustment of their property rights, though made in contemplation of divorce, can or may be sustained or upheld by the courts. See Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516, 114 So. 371; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151, 179 So. 155; Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219, 179 So. 414; Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620, 4 So. (2nd) 850.”
The approved procedure for obtaining an order or decree vacating, setting aside, or annulling a final decree, entered by a court of chancery, regular upon its face, and alleged to have been obtained by fraud, deceit, artifice or trickery, or other unlawful means, was a bill of complaint, rather than oral motion or petition for the issuance of the rule nisi to show cause. See Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625, 6 So. (2nd) 620. In the case at bar the established procedure was not followed.
We have carefully studied and analyzed the testimony offered by the appellant (petitioner below and plaintiff in the divorce proceedings) in support of and to sustain the allegations of her petition charging fraud, deceit, artifice or trickery. It is our conclusion that the plaintiff failed and omitted to carry the burden of proof required by law and for this reason it becomes our duty to affirm the decree entered in the cause by the chancellor below.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isabel M. Cowen (Papert) v. Cowen, 95 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1957)…sband a divorce and their property settlement agreement, burden was on plaintiff to establish by competent evidence husband’s alleged fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or overreaching in obtaining settlement.” Likewise in the case of Gross v. Gross, 154 Fla. 649, 18 So. 2d 538, the Court, quoting with approval from the case of Miller v. Miller, 149 Fla. 722, 7 So. 2d 9, said: “The burden of proof under the law was on the plaintiff, Blanche H. Miller, to establish by competent evidence, fraud, deceit, dures…
-
Brown v. Brown, 432 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…, or prior to the death of her husband, or at a time before the rights of others intervened, as was done in Miller v. Miller, [149 Fla. 722, 7 So. 2d 9 (1942) ], then she would have been heard by a court of equity.” Id. at 730.10 In Gross v. Gross, 154 Fla. 649, 18 So. 2d 538 (1944), the denial of the wife’s petition to annul, vacate and set aside that portion of the final decree of divorce incorporating a property settlement agreement alleged to have been obtained by fraud, deceit, artifice and trickery w…
-
Haynes v. Haynes, 71 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1954)…elinquished her right to alimony, in consideration of the conveyance or payment to her of property or money pursuant to a comprehensive property settlement agreement, and such agreement has been fully executed and performed. See also Gross v. Gross, 154 Fla. 649, 18 So. 2d 538; Miller v. Miller, supra. To the contrary, it will be found that in every instance where a petition for modification has been considered on its merits, and a new alimony award made or denied on the ground of changed circumstances sinc…
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Mgmt. Co., 116 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1934)
- Miller v. Miller, 149 Fla. 722 (Fla. 1942)
- Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1927)
- State v. Swanson, 116 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1934)
- State Ex Rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1942)
- Norton v. Katharine E. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1938)
- Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1938)
- Rice v. Rice, 4 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1941)