MYRTIS D. SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
THEODORE D. SIMMONS, APPELLEE
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 former wife appealed a trial court order requiring her to repay $5,500 in alimony received after she secretly entered into a common law marriage in 1965. The court affirmed, holding that while a subsequent marriage does not automatically terminate alimony, equity requires a former wife to disclose remarriage and prevents her from concealing it to continue collecting alimony from her former husband.
The court affirmed the trial court's order requiring repayment. While a subsequent marriage does not automatically terminate alimony obligations, equity requires a former wife to disclose her remarriage to her former husband. A former wife cannot conceal remarriage and continue collecting alimony from her former husband while simultaneously asserting marital status benefits with her new husband.
[1] A divorced spouse who remarries may be required to repay alimony received after the remarriage if the remarriage was concealed from the former spouse.
[2] A former spouse is not entitled to continue receiving permanent alimony after remarrying, even if the remarriage is not formally recorded.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is inequitable and unjust for a divorced wife for whom permanent alimony is declared not to advise her prior husband of her remarriage and to knowingly continue to receive said alimony subsequent to her remarriage”
States the core equitable principle underlying the trial court's decision to require repayment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMyrtis and Theodore were divorced on May 28, 1962, with Theodore ordered to pay $50 monthly in permanent alimony. Theodore continued making payments u…
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 Equitable Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
The sole point on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering Myrtis Murphy Simmons Hilburn to repay to her former husband, Theodore D. Simmons, the sum of $5,500.00 which she had received from him in permanent alimony subsequent to her alleged common law remarriage in 1965 to William Elbin Hilburn.
The facts are uncontroverted. On May 28, 1962, the Circuit Court of Escambia County granted a decree of divorce in favor of Myrtis from Theodore. That decree restored to Myrtis her maiden name of Myrtis Murphy and required Theodore to pay to her monthly alimony in the sum of $50.00. Theodore made the permanent alimony payments until January, 1975, at which time he discovered that Myrtis had filed a petition for letters of administration of the estate of William Elbin Hilburn, claiming to be his widow. Upon discovering that Myrtis was asserting that she had married Hilburn in 1965, Theodore filed the instant petition seeking to modify the final decree of divorce by relieving him of any further responsibility to pay permanent alimony and further seeking restitution by Myrtis of all alimony payments received by her from the date of her alleged common law marriage.
In its judgment modifying the divorce decree, the trial court found that Myrtis did not advise Theodore that she had remarried; that the common law marriage was not a matter of record and that Myrtis had secreted the fact of said marriage; and that although a subsequent marriage does not automatically terminate alimony payment and ordinarily the divorced husband must apply to the court for a termination of said alimony payments, it is inequitable and unjust for a divorced wife for whom permanent alimony is declared not to advise her prior husband of her remarriage and to knowingly continue to receive said alimony subsequent to her remarriage. After reciting the foregoing material findings of fact, the trial court terminated any further alimony and entered judgment in favor of Theodore against Myrtis in the sum of $5,500.00.
A review of this record discloses without contradiction that Theodore had no reason to know of Myrtis’s remarriage, that he mailed the monthly alimony checks to her at their former marital home, and the checks were made payable to Myrtis Murphy (her maiden name) and she endorsed them in that name. Equity travels a two-way street. This record fully supports the trial court’s finding that Myrtis secreted the fact of her remarriage from Theodore. She is privileged to assert in the probate court her common law marriage to Hilburn in 1965; she is not privileged to concurrently assert her entitlement to a portion of the fruits of Theodore’s material goods during the same period of time. Material benefits from one husband during a specific time is enough. A claim of such benefits from two husbands is too much.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, J., and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge, concur.