JOHN L. ROUSE, APPELLANT,
v.
GWENDOLINE ROUSE, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1966-11-01
No. 66-668
Before HENDRY, C. J., and CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
192 So. 2d 77 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1966)

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.


Holding

The court held that a separation agreement, valid on its face and properly executed, should have been admitted into evidence, even if its validity is later challenged.


Facts & Procedural History

The husband appealed an intermediate order in a divorce proceeding, challenging the exclusion of a separation agreement and amendment. The trial court…

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
SWANN, Judge.

SWANN, Judge.

The husband, defendant in a divorce proceeding, takes this interlocutory appeal to challenge an “intermediate order” entered by the chancellor. Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

No abuse of discretion having been clearly shown, the temporary awards of monthly support and maintenance, and fees for the wife’s attorney are affirmed.

We find error in the chancellor’s refusal to admit into evidence a separation agreement and amendment thereto on the grounds that the husband had failed to make a full disclosure of his assets to his wife.

This agreement between the parties appears to have been valid on its face and properly executed. The pleadings raised no issues concerning its validity or execution but upon oral motion at the final hearing, the court refused to admit it.

Inasmuch as the agreement appeared to be valid on its face, we hold it should have been admitted into evidence. Once admitted, it could then be subjected to attack under proper pleadings as being invalid because of duress, coercion, lack of full disclosure or fraud.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part, remanding with instructions to permit the separation agreement and amendments thereto into evidence.

It is so ordered.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw