ADLER v. ADLER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 2D01-215

Attorney(S)

Allison M. Perry of Law Office of Allison M. Perry, and Ronald S. Reed of Ronald S. Reed, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ronald J. Russo, Tampa, for Appellee.

Judges

GREEN, Judge.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Sherry Adler appealed a partial final judgment of annulment entered in favor of her husband, Gary Noon Adler, in a dissolution proceeding. The underlying dispute arose from Mrs. Adler's misrepresentations regarding the number of her prior marriages. At the start of their relationship, Mrs. Adler stated she had been married twice before—once ending by death and once by divorce—when in fact she had been married four times, all ending in divorce. She also misrepresented this information on her marriage application and in sworn interrogatories. Mr. Adler contended, and the trial court found, that he would not have married her had he known the true facts. The trial court granted an annulment based on fraud inducing the marriage. The parties had been legally married for nearly ten years, lived as husband and wife, worked together in business, and the marriage was consummated. Mrs. Adler filed for dissolution, challenging the annulment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether fraudulent misrepresentations about prior marriages justify annulment after a long-term, consummated marriage.
Whether the precedent in Jones v. Jones supports affirming annulment under these facts.
Whether consummation of the marriage precludes annulment on the basis of fraud.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Sherry Adler)

The trial court erred in granting annulment despite the marriage being consummated and lasting nearly ten years.
The precedent relied upon by the appellee, Jones v. Jones, is factually and legally distinguishable and potentially outdated due to legislative changes.
Fraud alone is insufficient to justify annulment once the marriage has been consummated.

Appellee's Arguments (Gary Noon Adler)

Relied on Jones v. Jones to support affirmance of annulment due to fraudulent inducement into marriage.
Contended that the fraudulent misrepresentations about prior marriages justified annulment despite the duration of the marriage.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Jones v. Jones, 161 So. 836 (Fla. 1935)	Annulment granted where marriage was voidable due to bigamy and no consummation after discovery of fraud.	Distinguished as factually and legally inapplicable because the marriage in this case was neither void nor voidable, and consummated.
Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 46 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1950)	Annulment is available only if the marriage has not been consummated despite fraud inducing the marriage.	Relied upon to hold that consummation precludes annulment based on fraud.
Savini v. Savini, 58 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1952)	Fraud alone is insufficient to grant annulment if the marriage has been consummated.	Supported the conclusion that the trial court erred in granting annulment after consummation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the marriage and the legal effect of fraud on annulment. It noted that the parties had been legally married for almost ten years, lived as husband and wife, and the marriage was consummated. The court distinguished the cited precedent Jones v. Jones because that case involved a voidable marriage that ripened into a common-law marriage and was not consummated after the fraud was discovered. Additionally, the court recognized that Florida law since 1967 invalidates common-law marriages, casting doubt on the continued viability of Jones.

The court found persuasive the principles from Rubenstein and Savini, which establish that annulment on the basis of fraud is only appropriate if the marriage has not been consummated. Because the parties' marriage was consummated and lasted nearly a decade, the court concluded that fraud alone did not justify annulment. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the partial final judgment of annulment.

Holding and Implications

The court reversed the trial court's partial final judgment of annulment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The direct effect of this decision is that the annulment previously granted in favor of Mr. Adler is set aside. The parties remain married under the law, and the dissolution proceeding must continue without annulment. The court did not establish new precedent but reaffirmed existing Florida law that consummation of marriage precludes annulment based solely on fraudulent inducement.

Show full summary ...

SHERRY ADLER, Appellant, v. GARY NOON ADLER, Appellee.

GREEN, Judge.

In this dissolution proceeding, Sherry Adler appeals the trial court's partial final judgment of annulment entered in favor her husband, Gary Noon Adler. Mrs. Adler presents two points on appeal, the first of which is determinative and is a basis for reversal.

Many of the facts pertinent to this appeal are undisputed. Viewing all of the alleged facts most favorably to Mr. Adler, it appears that Mrs. Adler has been untruthful to Mr. Adler, the state of Florida, and the trial court with respect to the number of her prior marriages. At the outset of the couple's courtship, Mrs. Adler stated to Mr. Adler that she had been married two times; the first marriage ended due to the death of her husband, and her second marriage ended by divorce. Mrs. Adler was actually married four times, and all of those marriages ended by divorce. Mrs. Adler also misrepresented the number of previous marriages on her marriage application with the state of Florida and in her sworn interrogatory responses to Mr. Adler's questions. Mr. Adler contended, and the trial judge so found, that he would not have married Mrs. Adler had he been aware of her actual marital history. The trial judge proceeded to grant an annulment to Mr. Adler based on what he characterized as fraudulent statements by Mrs. Adler which induced Mr. Adler into marriage.

It is not suggested that Mrs. Adler lacked the legal ability to engage in the marital relationship with Mr. Adler. The parties had been legally married almost ten years before Mrs. Adler filed her petition for dissolution of the marriage. The parties have not only lived as husband and wife for this period of time, but the record reflects that they have been working in a business together. The parties also stipulated that the marriage was consummated.

The husband relies on Jones v. Jones, 161 So. 836 (Fla. 1935), in support of affirmance. However, that case is distinguishable both factually and legally. In Jones, the wife married the husband when she was still married. During the marriage the first husband died. The court stated that the parties' marriage was therefore void but ripened into a valid common-law marriage after the first husband died. The husband sought and was granted an annulment because the husband did not have sexual relations with the wife during the common-law marriage after the time he learned of the fraud. What Mr. Adler fails to note is that the marriage at issue in Jones was "legally voidable although not absolutely void at the time" the suit was filed. In the case at bar, the marriage was never void or voidable.

In 1967, the legislature added section 741.211 to the Florida Statutes, invalidating all common-law marriages entered into after January 1, 1968. Therefore, it is questionable whetherJones remains good law.

We are persuaded by the cases cited by Mrs. Adler that the trial judge erred in terminating the parties' relationship by annulment. In Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 46 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1950), the supreme court stated unequivocally that "it is established law that one who has become a party to that ceremony by fraud of the other party may secure annulment if the marriage has not been completed by sexual intercourse." Accord Savini v. Savini, 58 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1952) (holding that although appellee committed fraud upon appellant, the marriage was consummated and fraud alone is not sufficient to grant annulment). Therefore, the trial court erred in granting partial final judgment of annulment.

We therefore reverse the judgment of annulment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BLUE, C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.