Case Name: Uhlan Stanley NEWTON, Petitioner, v. Ruby Virginia NEWTON, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1971-02-17
Citations: 245 So. 2d 45
Docket Number: No. 39724
Parties: Uhlan Stanley NEWTON, Petitioner, v. Ruby Virginia NEWTON, Respondent.
Judges: ROBERTS, C. J., CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 245
Pages: 45–47

Head Matter:
Uhlan Stanley NEWTON, Petitioner, v. Ruby Virginia NEWTON, Respondent.
No. 39724.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 17, 1971.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1971.
William Murrell, Jr., Orlando, for petitioner.
Gladstone L. Kohloss and Donald R. Corbett, Orlando, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This cause arose when respondent wife brought suit for divorce against petitioner husband in the Circuit Court of Orange County. Petitioner defended by stating that the marriage had been dissolved, and exhibited a final decree of divorce, valid on its face, entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court in the State of Nevada. The plaintiff wife amended her complaint to state that defendant had secured a divorce in another state; she did not allege that the Nevada divorce was invalid. The trial court did not dismiss the cause nor find that the Nevada divorce was invalid, but instead entered an order requiring defendant to pay to plaintiff temporary alimony and temporary counsel's fees. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed per curiam; 234 So.2d 746.
This Court issued writ of certiorari and took jurisdiction pursuant to F.A.R. 2.1, subd. a(5) (b), 32 F.S.A., to resolve apparent conflict with the prior decision in Stewart v. Stewart, 115 Fla. 158, 155 So. 114 (1934), in which this Court held that a trial court could not order payment of alimony or counsel's fees until it had determined whether the Nevada divorce involved in that case was invalid.
It is provided by the Federal Constitution, § 1, art. IV, that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State
It is well-established law that every state is required to recognize and respect the valid final decrees and orders of the courts of all other states. A decree or order valid in the state where it is issued ordinarily will be honored in any state where an attempt is made to bring suit on the same cause of action. A divorce decree of any state is presumed valid on its face and until same is proved to be invalid serves as a bar to successful prosecution of another action for divorce in this State. The trial court is not at liberty to ignore the binding order of the foreign court.
The order of this Court in Stewart v. Stewart, supra, is controlling in this case, being:
"The answer of the defendant below, was in denial of the marital relation claimed by the complainant from whom he had obtained a Nevada divorce. The answer presents matters of judicial record which, so long as they stand unchallenged, constitute a complete and perfect bar to the complainant's bill and every feature of it. It was therefore error for the chancellor to have entered any order against the defendant below for temporary alimony or counsel fees before the court could, on appropriate allegations in the bill and upon sufficient proofs, legally determine and adjudicate the foreign divorce decree to be void for those causes which it is within the power of the courts of this state to take cognizance of in regard to divorce decrees, under the limitations of the Constitution of the United States requiring the courts of this state to give full faith and credit to the records and judicial proceedings of other jurisdictions." (p. 115)
The affirmance of the District Court of Appeal is quashed, and this cause is remanded to the District Court to be further remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.