IN RE : ESTATE OF ROSA PRICE, DECEASED
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.
In this probate dispute, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of Letters of Administration granted to Nick, who claimed to be the surviving husband of Rosa Price. The court held that Nick's answer in a separate maintenance suit, wherein he denied the marriage relationship, was admissible against him and that the evidence failed to establish a valid common law marriage.
The court held that Nick's answer denying the marriage relationship was admissible against him as proof, not as an absolute estoppel. On the factual question, the evidence was insufficient to establish a valid common law marriage because it failed to demonstrate the mutual consent essential to such a marriage, and specifically lacked evidence of words of present assent (verba de praesenti).
“There must be words of present assent per verba de praesenti.”
Establishes the essential requirement for a valid common law marriage under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosa and Nick were formerly married, divorced, and subsequently lived together as lovers. Rosa operated a 'sporting house' while Nick worked as a boli…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
Rosa and Nick were married. They lived together. They were divorced. Romance was' still in the air. The affinity could not be forgotten. Rosa and Nick became lovers. She was the proprietor of a place that had the reputation of being a “sporting house.” Nick ostensibly followed the calling of a bolita peddler and gambler, although he lived in a room adjoining the room of Rosa. Perhaps, they did swear to be true to each other, true as the stars above, but all was not well. Rosa said Nick did her wrong. She did not become 'desperate or take matters into her own hands. She filed a suit for separate maintenance upon the basis of a common law marriage, alleging that Nick had been guilty of adultery with divers women—the places were not mentioned—and guilty of habitual intemperance. Nick re*468tained counsel, who filed an answer denying the marriage relationship. While the suit was still pending Rosa died. Nick, alleging that he was the surviving husband and sole heir of Rosa, procured Letters of Administration naming him as Administrator of her estate, valued at $2,500.00. The sisters and a brother of Rosa filed a petition for revocation of the Letters of Administration, alleging that Nick was not the husband of Rosa at the time of her death. Upon- the trial in the County Judge’s Court, the court admitted in evidence, over the objection of Nick, his answer filed in the separate maintenance suit. The County Judge found the issues of fact in favor of the petitioners, and revoked the Letters of Administration issued to Nick. Upon appeal the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court Nick now further appeals to this' Court.
Only two questions are presented, first—a question of law as to whether under the 1931 Chancery Act, an answer denying the marriage relationship is admissible against the interest of the answering defendant in another cause, wherein he seeks' to assert the existence of the marriage relationship; and, second—a question of fact—was Nick the husband of Rosa when she died?
Section 7 of the 1931 Chancery Act sustains the ruling of the trial judge in admitting the answer in evidence. The answer implies that it was prepared upon instructions from Nick to his counsel. There is nothing to indicate any fraud, or any other valid reason, why the answer should not be admissible in evidence—not as an absolute estoppel, but as proof against Nick. See Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743, 33 So. 427, and Booth v. Lenox, 45 Fla. 191, 34 So. 566.
On the question of fact, the evidence is ample to support the judgment of the trial court. Particularly is this so when it has been affirmed by the Circuit Court. The evi*469dence wholly fails' to show the mutual consent essential to establish a common law marriage. It does not appear that there was any agreement to become husband and wife immediately from the time when mutual consent was given. Neither cohabitation and repute nor circumstances, whose sole function is to show mutual consent of the parties, establishes a common law marriage of itself. There must be words of present assent per verba de praesenti. Marsicano v. Marsicano, 79 Fla. 278, 84 So. 156. Chaves v. Chaves, 79 Fla. 602, 84 So. 672; Garcia v. Exchange National Bank, Tampa, 123 Fla. 726, 167 So. 518.
This is just another suit where no useful purpose whatsoever would be served in endeavoring to restate all the evidence. While the tale is sordid, the motive of Nick is obvious. His persistence is difficult to understand in the light of this record. The appeal is as destitute of merit, as Nick is devoid of conscience.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., absent because of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hines v. Trager Constr. Co., Inc., 188 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…v. American Truss Co., Inc., (Fla.App.1964) 168 So. 2d 100. . 25 Fla.Jur. 249, Pleadings, § 93. . 13 Fla.Jur. 220, Evidence, § 222. . Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743, 33 So. 427. . Booth v. Lenox, 45 Fla. 191, 34 So. 566. . In re Price’s Estate, 129 Fla. 467, 176 So. 492. . Brickley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 153 Fla. 1, 13 So. 2d 300. . Dowling v. Nicholson, 101 Fla. 672, 135 So. 288, 203. . Olin’s, Inc. v. Avis Rental Car System of Florida, Inc. (Fla.1958), 104 So. 2d 508, 510, 511. To same ef…
-
Carretta v. Carretta, 58 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1952)…la. 278, 84 So. 156, this Court held that to constitute a valid marriage, per verba de praesenti, there must be an agreement to become husband and wife immediately from the time when the mutual consent is given. In the case of In re Price's Estate, 129 Fla. 467, 176 So. 492, 493, we held that "neither cohabitation and repute nor circumstances, whose sole function is to show mutual consent of the parties, establishes a common-law marriage of itself. There must be words of present assent per verba de praesen…
-
Marshall v. Sarar, 118 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…and wife is far short of the requirement to establish a common law marriage. The fundamental element of the common law marriage is the agreement of the parties. There must be mutual consent to marry per verba de praesenti. See In re Price’s Estate, 129 Fla. 467, 176 So. 492; Carretta v. Carretta, Fla.1952, 58 So. 2d 439; Jordan v. Jordan, supra. Accordingly, the decree appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Reversed and remanded. PEARSON a…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marsicano v. Marsicano, 79 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1920)
- Greer v. Illgen, 79 Fla. 383 (Fla. 1920)
- Booth v. Lenox, 45 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1903)
- Chaves v. Belle Springer Chaves, 79 Fla. 602 (Fla. 1920)
- Younglove v. Knox, 44 Fla. 743 (Fla. 1902)
- Garcia v. The Exch. Nat'l Bank of Tampa, 123 Fla. 726 (Fla. 1936)