GUSTAVE ALBERT SAUER
v.
LOIS K. SAUER
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree that granted the wife custody of their young child and ordered the father to pay $30 per month for child support. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the decree and that the father's post-appeal motion to set aside the decree was procedurally improper because jurisdiction had already transferred to the appellate court.
The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the decree. Additionally, the court held that it could not adjudicate issues raised by the motion to set aside because jurisdiction had transferred to the appellate court upon filing the notice of appeal, and no separate appeal was taken from the trial court's order denying the motion to set aside.
“The custody and welfare of a child or children of divorced parents can and may be inquired into on application to a court of competent jurisdiction when appropriate orders can or may be entered.”
Establishes that custody determinations are reviewable and subject to court inquiry in appropriate circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Circuit Court of Lake County entered a final divorce decree on February 1, 1944, granting Lois K. Sauer a divorce, awarding her custody of their c…
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 Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
On February 1, 1944, the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida, entered a final decree in the case at bar. This decree (1) granted the wife (Lois K. Sauer) a divorce; (2) awarded her the custody of their child then about two and one-half years of age, and (3) required the father (Gustave Albert Sauer) to pay, for the support, maintenance and education of the child, the sum of $30.00 per month.
On March 31, 1944, Gustave A. Sauer caused to be recorded in the Chancery order book of Lake County, Florida, a notice of appeal from the final decree dated February 1, 1944, and recorded on the same date in the Chancery order book in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida. The appeal was made returnable to the Supreme Court of Florida on the 12th day of June, 1944.
On April 6, 1944, the defendant below (appellant here) filed in the court below a sworn motion to set aside the final *828decree previously appealed from and re-open the case. The grounds of the motion refer to: (1) the business and finan-' cial affairs of the appellant; (b) his health and mental condition; (c) details of an attempt to commit suicide; and other grounds or reasons appearing in the motion. An exhibit was attached to the motion. The court below by appropriate order denied the motion on April 6, 1944.
Counsel for appellant, by his first question posed, contends that the evidence adduced before the chancellor below and appearing in the record is legally insufficient to support the decree entered below. Careful consideration has been given to all the evidence and the applicable law and it is our conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to support the decree. See Ramsay v. Ramsay, 141 Fla. 665, 193 So. 759; Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 807, 193 So. 65; Forde v. Forde, 152 Fla. 142, 10 So. (2nd) 919. The custody and welfare of a child or children of divorced parents can and may be inquired into on application to a court of competent jurisdiction when appropriate orders can or may be entered. See Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151, 179 So. 155.
Posed for adjudication by this- Court on the part of counsel for appellant are questions based on the motion to set aside the final decree and reopen the case. This .motion was presented to the court below under date of April 6, 1944. The jurisdiction of the cause had previously been transferred to the Supreme Court of Florida by appellant’s notice of appeal dated March 31, 1944, and then of record in Chancery Order Book No. 32, at page 545, appearing in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida. An appeal here was not taken from the order dated April 6, 1944, entered by the court below after the jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of the litigation had been lodged in this Court by the notice of appeal. The questions posed by counsel cannot be adjudicated by this Court. See Thursby v. Stewart, 103 Fla. 990, 138 So. 742, and similar cases.
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 *829other unlawful means, is by bill of complaint rather than a motion to set aside the final decree and open up the case. See Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625, 6 So. (2nd) 620.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. Berger, 109 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1959)…103 So. 2d at page 630. . See State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation, Ine. v. Knott, Fla., 97 So. 2d 265. . State ex rel. Coleman v. Williams, 147 Fla. 514, 3 So. 2d 152; State ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625, 6 So. 2d 620; Sauer v. Sauer, 154 Fla. 827, 19 So. 2d 247; Hoffman v. Hoffman, Fla., 92 So. 2d 524. . Freeman on Judgments, 5th ed., Vol. 1, Sec. 196 et seep . 19 Fla.Jur., Judgments and Decrees, Sec. 474.…
-
Hoffman v. Etta Hoffman, 92 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1957)…loped by the testimony. No suit was properly brought to attack the solemn decree, the proceeding ex mero motu was wholly irregular, and therefore, [*526] there was no foundation for the decree setting aside the divorce. Sauer v. Sauer, 154 Fla. 827, 19 So. 2d 247. The decree is reversed. TERRELL, C. J., and ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.…
-
Smith v. Smith, 98 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…the absence of appropriate pleadings of a party seeking review thereof in the nature of a bill of review, was unauthorized, under Kurtz v. Kurtz, 112 Fla. 619, 150 So. 785; State ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625, 6 So. 2d 620; Sauer v. Sauer, 154 Fla. 827, 19 So. 2d 247; Hoffman v. Hoffman, Fla.1957, 92 So. 2d 524. Cf. Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 334. It should be noted, in fairness to the two chancellors who took part in the proceedings after the original decree became final, that they…
Authorities Cited
- Thursby v. Stewart, 103 Fla. 990 (Fla. 1931)
- Diem v. Diem, 141 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1940)
- State Ex Rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 149 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1942)
- Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1938)
- Forde v. Forde, 152 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1942)
- Dickson v. The Ridge Realty Co., 141 Fla. 807 (Fla. 1940)
- Ramsey v. Ramsey, 141 Fla. 665 (Fla. 1940)