ROY
v.
ROY

Fla. | 1954-06-15
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
73 So. 2d 294 Florida Supreme Court (1954) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree, holding that a prior separate maintenance suit in Washington D.C. did not act as res judicata or estoppel because the grounds for divorce in the Florida suit were different and included habitual intemperance, which was not an issue in the prior suit.


Holding

No, the prior Washington D.C. suit does not act as res judicata or estoppel because the grounds for divorce in the Florida suit were different and included habitual intemperance, which was not litigated in the prior action.


Key Quotes

“The causes of action were entirely different.”

Establishes the core reasoning for why the prior suit did not bar the current one.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant wife claimed that a prior suit for separate maintenance in Washington D.C., which resulted in her receiving title to real property, shou…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MATHEWS, Justice.

MATHEWS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. One of the principal, issues in this suit is that there had been filed and was pending at the time of these proceedings, a suit in Washington, D. C. for a divorce mensa et thoro. A judgment was entered in that suit whereby the wife received title to certain real property and claims that such suit operated as res judi-cata upon the final decree of divorce now under review or worked an estoppel by judgment as to the appellees cause of action.

The causes of action were entirely different. In the Washington, D. C. suit the appellant merely alleged desertion and cruelty as a ground for separate maintenance. In the Florida suit for divorce the appellee alleged habitual .intemperance together with extreme cruelty and desertion as the , grounds for divorce. The record shows that habitual intemperance was not an issue in the Washington, D. C. suit and it was an issue in the Florida suit, arid the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the Chancellor in finding that the appellant had been guilty of habitual intemperance. All of the assignments of error, pleadings, testimony and final de cree of the Chancellor have been carefully reviewed, and the final decree of the Chancellor was without reversible error. It is, therefore, ordered that the final decree of the Chancellor be and the same is hereby

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Stone v. Stone, 111 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
    …s which might have been, but were not litigated and decided. Prall v. Prall, supra; Bagwell v. Bagwell, 153 Fla. 471, 14 So. 2d 841; Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Fla. 515, 26 So. 2d 445; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 40. See Roy v. Roy, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 294; Horn v. Horn, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 860; Shirley v. Shirley, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 450; Restatement, Judgments, § 74, comment d. In this case, in applying estoppel by judgment, the chancellor used the res judi-cata rule ryhich is applicable only…
  • Horn v. Horn, 85 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1956)
    …divorce in Dade County on the ground of habitual intemperance. In our view this question requires a negative answer on authority of Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 40; Coleman v. Coleman, 157 Fla. 515, 26 So. 2d 445, and Roy v. Roy, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 294. These cases approve the doctrine that where one spouse brings separate maintenance proceedings on the ground of abandonment, the judgment secured is not res judicata or estoppel as to Florida divorce proceedings by the other spouse on grounds of al…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw