EDWARD M. MATSIS
v.
BEATRICE APPT MATSIS
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.
A woman sought to vacate a divorce decree on grounds of fraud, claiming her ex-husband had concealed prior divorce proceedings from another state. The Florida Supreme Court held that res judicata and failure to raise defenses in the original suit barred her challenge, and that her allegations did not constitute fraud warranting collateral attack.
The court held that the bill of review has no equity and the motion to dismiss should have been granted. The allegations showed not fraud but an attempt to relitigate foreclosed issues, and res judicata and waiver principles barred the collateral attack because the wife had notice and opportunity to defend but failed to assert her defenses.
“It is our view that there is no equity in the bill, and that the motion to dismiss should have been granted. The allegations of the bill of complaint show not fraud but an attempt by the wife to relitigate issues which should have been presented in the original suit and which have been foreclosed by the entry of the final decree and the lapse of the statutory time within which to take an appeal.”
Establishes the court's core holding that res judicata and waiver prevented collateral attack on the divorce decree
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward M. Matsis obtained a divorce decree against his wife Beatrice in Brevard County circuit court on grounds of extreme cruelty and desertion, usin…
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 Bill Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition for interlocutory certiorari to review an order of the circuit court denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint in the cause.
From the record before us it appears that Edward M. Matsis instituted a suit in the Circuit Court of Brevard County, Florida, praying for a divorce from his wife, Beatrice Appt Matsis, on the grounds of extreme cruelty and desertion. Constructive service of process was had on the wife, who was a nonresident of the State of Florida. Beatrice Appt Matsis did not appeal in, or defend against, the suit, and a final decree of divorce was entered in favor of the husband on the grounds alleged. After entry of the final decree the husband married another woman.
Subsequently, more than nine months after entry of the final decree of divorce, Beatrice Appt Matsis filed an original bill in the nature of a bill of review in the circuit court of Brevard County, praying that the divorce decree be vacated on the ground of fraud. The substance of the charge of fraud is that prior to the institution of the divorce suit in Brevard *787County Edward M. Matsis had attempted to procure a decree of divorce from her, the said Beatrice Appt Matsis, in the Hillsborough County Superior Court of New Hampshire on the grounds of extreme cruelty and desertion; that after a trial on the merits the New Hampshire court had denied Matsis the relief sought, had dismissed his bill, and had entered a divorce decree in favor of the wife, a mensa et thoro; that said decree of dismissal against him in the Hills-borough County Superior Court of New Hampshire, by which he was denied relief and a decree was granted to his wife, operated as a legal bar to prevent the said Matsis from relitigating in another forum the grounds for divorce which had been previously asserted in the New Hampshire suit and which had been concluded by a final decree of dismissal; that when Matsis had instituted his suit for divorce in the Circuit Court of Brevard County he had committed fraud upon the court by intentionally omitting from the allegations of his bill of complaint any reference to the prior divorce proceedings and decree of dismissal, by which he was denied a divorce and the wife was granted a divorce a mensa et thoro. It is also asserted in the bill of complaint that the final decree of divorce should be set aside for the reason that at the time of trial on the merits in the Brevard Circuit Court proceeding Matsis had not offered any witnesses to corroborate his own testimony on the facts of extreme cruelty alleged in the bill of complaint to have been committed by the wife.
A motion to dismiss the bill was denied. The defendant comes to this Court by petition for certiorari, asking that we review the order of the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.
It is our view that there is no equity in the bill, and that the motion to dismiss should have been granted. The allegations of the bill of complaint show not fraud but an attempt by the wife to relitigate issues which should have been presented in the original suit and which have been foreclosed by the entry of the final decree and the lapse of the statutory time within which to take an appeal. If the decree entered in the New Hampshire court did in fact constitute a bar to any subsequent suit by the husband on the same issues, it was *788Mrs. Matsis’ duty to assert such defense- in the original suit in timely manner, if she cared to avail herself of such defense. See Harrison v. Harrison, 19 Ala. 499. If the evidence offered by Mr. Matsis to sustain his bill was insufficient, the place to have made the objection was in the original suit; there being at least some evidence offered by the plaintiff in the original suit to prove his cause of action. Having intentionally refrained from asserting her defenses or contesting the issues in a suit of which she had due and legal notice and an opportunity to be heard, Mrs. Matsis may not now be heard to question the final decree in this collateral proceeding instituted after the time for appeal has expired. Mabson v. Mabson, 104 Fla. 162, 140 So. 801; Hay v. Salisbury, et ux., 92 Fla. 446, 108 So. 617.
Certiorari is granted quashing the order reviewed, with directions that an order be entered granting the motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masilotti v. Masilotti, 158 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1947)…d notice of the suit long prior to its conclusion and, in fact, states in her bill of complaint that she believed “that the decree against her would follow as a matter of course in the absence of opposition by her.” In the case of Matsis v. Matsis, 155 Fla. 786, 21 So. 2d 545, it was said: “Where a wife intentionally refrained from contesting issues in a divorce suit of which she had due notice and an opportunity to be heard, the wife could not question the final decree by a bill in the nature of a bill o…
-
MacFadden v. Byrnece Muckerman, 116 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…insic fraud. The rule is and has been that those issues that could or have been litigated in the proceedings themselves are not sufficient grounds to collaterally attack a decree which otherwise appears to be valid on its face. See Matsis v. Matsis, 155 Fla. 786, 21 So. 2d 545; Fair v. Tampa Electric Co., 158 Fla. 15, 27 So. 2d 514; Masilotti v. Masilotti, 158 Fla. 663, 29 So. 2d 872. As opposed to intrinsic fraud, the bill of complaint does not, in our opinion, allege facts which would constitute extrinsic…
-
Simons v. Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank, 157 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…90; MacFadden v. Muckerman, Fla.App.1959, 116 So. 2d 448. The prior New York separate maintenance decree was not a bar to a divorce suit by the husband, and his failure to disclose it in his complaint was not a fraud on the court. Matsis v. Matsis, 155 Fla. 786, 21 So. 2d 545; Bernstein v. Bernstein, supra. Any affirmative defense the prior suit may have afforded should have been presented in the divorce suit. See Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 577; Bernstein v. Bernstein, supra;…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hay v. Lyman A. Salisbury and Ruth Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1926)
- Mabson v. Mabson, 104 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1932)