Baumgarth v. Baumgarth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baumgarth v. Baumgarth

525 So. 2d 513, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2199, 1988 WL 53029

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1983

StatusPublished

This text of 525 So. 2d 513 (Baumgarth v. Baumgarth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baumgarth v. Baumgarth, 525 So. 2d 513, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2199, 1988 WL 53029 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a timely appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of appel-lee, Charles Baumgarth, in an action brought by Charles seeking relief from his obligations of support under a final judgment of dissolution on the ground that the marriage was invalid due to bigamy on the part of appellant, Mona Baumgarth.

Mona contends that there were genuine issues of material fact existing that precluded entry of summary judgment. We agree and reverse.

Briefly, prior to this marriage between Mona and Charles, Mona had allegedly been married to Stephen Griffith. That marriage had not been dissolved nor annulled at the time Mona and Charles were married. In September, 1985, a final judgment was entered dissolving this marriage between Mona and Charles. Said judgment incorporated a separation and property settlement agreement providing for alimony and child support. When Charles failed to make the payments as required by the judgment, Mona resorted to the court for enforcement thereof. Charles responded by seeking relief from the judgment based upon Mona’s alleged fraud on Charles and the court in that her prior marriage to Griffith had never been dissolved. Finally, in April, 1986, Mona obtained a final judgment annulling the alleged marriage to Griffith.

Charles filed a motion for summary judgment, which alleges that no issue of fact exists because, at the time of this marriage, Mona remained married to Griffith; this marriage was a legal nullity; and the court should vacate the final judgment of dissolution entered between Mona and Charles as well as the separation agreement of the parties.

Some of the questions of fact remaining are whether Mona’s alleged marriage to Griffith was in fact and law a valid marriage rendering Mona incapable of contracting a valid marriage with Charles; also, whether Charles was aware of the alleged prior marriage to Griffith. Mona says he was; Charles denies it. There was conflicting evidence and inferences that could be drawn on the issues of the validity of the prior marriage, the validity of the later marriage, the existence of fraud on the part of Mona, and on Charles’s knowledge and acceptance of the prior marriage as being unlawful or invalid (such that he should be estopped from asserting the pri- or marriage as an impediment to make his marriage to Mona void).

Our review of the record convinces us that summary judgment was premature and that appellant was entitled to a trial of .the issues.

[515]*515Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a timely appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of appel-lee, Charles Baumgarth, in an action brought by Charles seeking relief from his obligations of support under a final judgment of dissolution on the ground that the marriage was invalid due to bigamy on the part of appellant, Mona Baumgarth.

Mona contends that there were genuine issues of material fact existing that precluded entry of summary judgment. We agree and reverse.

Briefly, prior to this marriage between Mona and Charles, Mona had allegedly been married to Stephen Griffith. That marriage had not been dissolved nor annulled at the time Mona and Charles were married. In September, 1985, a final judgment was entered dissolving this marriage between Mona and Charles. Said judgment incorporated a separation and property settlement agreement providing for alimony and child support. When Charles failed to make the payments as required by the judgment, Mona resorted to the court for enforcement thereof. Charles responded by seeking relief from the judgment based upon Mona’s alleged fraud on Charles and the court in that her prior marriage to Griffith had never been dissolved. Finally, in April, 1986, Mona obtained a final judgment annulling the alleged marriage to Griffith.

Charles filed a motion for summary judgment, which alleges that no issue of fact exists because, at the time of this marriage, Mona remained married to Griffith; this marriage was a legal nullity; and the court should vacate the final judgment of dissolution entered between Mona and Charles as well as the separation agreement of the parties.

Some of the questions of fact remaining are whether Mona’s alleged marriage to Griffith was in fact and law a valid marriage rendering Mona incapable of contracting a valid marriage with Charles; also, whether Charles was aware of the alleged prior marriage to Griffith. Mona says he was; Charles denies it. There was conflicting evidence and inferences that could be drawn on the issues of the validity of the prior marriage, the validity of the later marriage, the existence of fraud on the part of Mona, and on Charles’s knowledge and acceptance of the prior marriage as being unlawful or invalid (such that he should be estopped from asserting the pri- or marriage as an impediment to make his marriage to Mona void).

Our review of the record convinces us that summary judgment was premature and that appellant was entitled to a trial of .the issues.

[515]*515Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 So. 2d 513, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2199, 1988 WL 53029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baumgarth-v-baumgarth-fladistctapp-1988.