CELIA SHIFMAN ROSEMAN
v.
JOHN ROSEMAN
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.
John Roseman appealed a divorce decree granted to his wife Celia on the ground of abandonment and desertion. The principal issue was whether a prior New Jersey support and maintenance decree was res adjudicata of the desertion claim in the Florida divorce suit. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the divorce, holding that the New Jersey decree did not conclusively resolve the desertion issue.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the New Jersey decree was not res adjudicata as to the desertion issue in the divorce suit. Although Florida gave full faith and credit to the New Jersey decree by incorporating its support and maintenance provisions into the divorce decree, the earlier adjudication was predicated on agreement rather than on the merits of the desertion charge, so it could not conclusively resolve the desertion claim.
“The chancellor in terms gave effect to the New Jersey decree by making the support and maintenance feature of it a part of his final decree for divorce.”
Establishes that the court did give full faith and credit to the New Jersey decree as to support and maintenance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties separated in June 1926. In June 1943, Celia sued John for divorce in Dade County, alleging abandonment and desertion since 1926. John deni…
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 Support And Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
In June, 1943, appellee sued appellant for divorce in Dade County alleging abandonment and desertion since June, 1926. In her answer to the bill of complaint, appellant denied deserting appellee but charged him with deserting her and their two children in the summer of 1926 and that such desertion had been continuous. She further alleged in her answer that in October, 1937, she secured a final decree in the Chancery Court of New Jersey against defendant for support and maintenance and wherein the court found and adjudged that defendant deserted the plaintiff without cause and neglected to provide for her.
The New Jersey decree was tendered as res adjudicata of the suit for divorce. A master was appointed and all testimony relating to the issues in the New Jersey suit for support and maintenance was objected tó. The master found that the question of desertion was not adjudicated in the New' Jersey suit since no testimony was taken and the case *751was settled and decree entered on the affidavit of the plaintiff. He recommended that the New Jersey decree be upheld as to support and maintenance but denied effect to it in other respects. The chancellor overruled exceptions to the master’s report and granted the divorce. This appeal is from the final decree.
It is first contended that the court below refused to give full faith and credit to the New. Jersey decree for support and maintenance as he was required to do by Article IV of the Federal Constitution.
We find no merit to this contention. The chancellor in terms gave effect to the New Jersey decree by making the support and maintenance feature of it a part of his final decree for divorce. It is shown that this part of the New Jersey decree was entered by consent of the parties, that the amount adjudicated has been paid consistently and that the parties have not lived together since it was entered. The New Jersey adjudication was predicated on the agreement for support and maintenance rather than on the merits of the charge of desertion. ,
Under such a state of facts, we do not think the New Jersey decree could be said to be res ajudicata as to the suit for divorce on the ground of desertion. The evidence shows that the parties have been separated for. eighteen years, that nothing has been done to effect a reconciliation and that so far as the record discloses, no attempts have been made for that purpose.
For the reasons so stated, the decree appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hyman Bernstein v. Bernstein, 160 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1948)…opriate matters of defense and since they are before him he may feel free to consider them and make such decree for the defendant as he may deem advisable. The suit for support and maintenance is not a bar to a suit for divorce. Roseman v. Roseman, 155 Fla. 750, 21 So. (2nd) 215. It may be expedient in a bill for divorce to recite the fact of proceedings in a foreign court for support and maintenance if they are in esse but that is not essential to the sufficiency of the bill for divorce. Such proceedings…
-
Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. George F. McCOURT Trucking, Inc., 277 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1960)…ata as Affected by Pact that Former Judgment was Entered by Agreement or Consent-Federal Cases, 97 L.Ed. 1188 (1953). See especially §§ 3, 5, 6, 9, 11. Cf. Annotation 2 A.L.R.2d 514-576, especially §§ 6, 7, 9, 11-13. . See Roseman v. Roseman, 1945, 155 Fla. 750, 21 So. 2d 215, 216: * * * [T]he New Jersey decree was entered by consent of the parties * * *. The New Jersey adjudication was predicated on the agreement for support and maintenance rather than on the merits of the charge of desertion. “Under su…