Coltun v. Coltun

167 So. 2d 336
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 22, 1964·No. No. 63-889·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the appellant [second husband of the appellee] attempts to attack a prior divorce decree between the ap-pellee and another, which is not void on its face.1 The chancellor in the trial court dismissed the complaint, and we affirm. A second husband has no standing to contest his wife’s previous decree of divorce. See: Hicks v. Hicks, 186 Ga. 362, 197 S.E. 878; Martocello v. Martocello, 197 Ga. 629, 30 S.E.2d 108; Kirby v. Kent, 172 Miss. 457, 160 So. 569, 99 A.L.R. 1303; Ruger v. Heckel (1881), 85 N.Y. 483; Suiter v. Suiter, 74 Ohio App. 44, 57 N.E.2d 616.

Affirmed.

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

Coltun v. Coltun, 167 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

167 So. 2d 336 (Coltun v. Coltun) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boyd v. Boyd
509 So. 2d 960 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Kessler v. Ray
438 So. 2d 987 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Kant v. Kant
265 So. 2d 524 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Boswell v. Boswell
35 Fla. Supp. 119 (Martin County Circuit Court, 1970)