Title: In Re Estate of Yohn
Citation: 238 So. 2d 290
Docket Number: 39343
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 29, 1970

238 So. 2d 290 (1970)
In re ESTATE of Carl Sylvester YOHN, Deceased.
No. 39343.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 29, 1970.
*291 Donald H. Partington, of Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark and Stone, Pensacola, for petitioner.
John M. Coe, of Coe &amp; Coe, Pensacola, for respondent.
ADKINS, Justice.
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (In Re Estate of Yohn, 229 So.2d 612), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this Court (Roberts v. Roberts, 124 Fla. 116, 167 So. 808) on the same point of law. Fla. Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A.
The question is whether the first wife, Myrtle Paul Yohn, or the second wife, Margaret Fillingim Yohn, is the lawful widow of Carl S. Yohn.
Carl Yohn married his first wife in Mississippi during the year 1955. A child, Jack Bert Yohn, was born in 1956. Carl, a resident of Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, had been in the service and upon his discharge visited his mother in Chicago. In 1957, the first wife, apparently without cause, left him and went to the west coast of the United States, taking the child with her. She had no further contact with her husband during his lifetime.
*292 Carl Yohn lived in Chicago during 1957 and 1958 and obtained employment there. However, he considered his home as being in Pensacola, Florida. His general occupation was that of a seaman and he was sometimes employed on a dredge boat or a tug boat. The record shows that he was employed for some time in Biloxi, Mississippi.
In 1961, Carl Yohn filed a complaint in Escambia County, Florida, seeking a divorce from his first wife. He made the required allegation that he was unable to ascertain the residence of his first wife after diligent search and inquiry and secured service by publication. A decree pro confesso was entered July 21, 1961. This action was subsequently dismissed on May 11, 1964 for want of prosecution.
In 1965, Carl Yohn stated he was "as free as the breeze" and that he was not a married man. On January 17, 1966, he applied for a marriage license and stated under oath that he had previously been married once and was divorced. On this date he married his second wife.
Carl died on June 19, 1967, and letters of administration were issued by the County Judge of Escambia County, Florida, to the second wife.
A petition was then filed by Jack Bert Yohn, a minor, by his grandmother as next friend. It was alleged that he was the son of the decedent, having been born of the marriage between the decedent and Myrtle Paul. It appeared from the petition that the principal asset of the estate consisted of a claim for damages arising from the wrongful death of the decedent, for the recovery of which an action had been instituted by the administratrix and was then pending in Alabama, the state wherein Carl Yohn died. The petition suggested that the second wife may not be the lawful widow of the decedent and prayed that the Court inquire into the question of whether the second wife administratrix was the lawful wife of the decedent at the time of his death.
Both the first wife and the second wife appeared at the hearings before the County Judge, each asserting her status as the lawful wife of the decedent. At the hearings before the County Judge, the ceremonial marriage to the first wife was attacked because Myrtle Paul, the first wife, had previously entered into a common-law marriage with James Johnson. The evidence pertaining to this question is discussed in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal.
The County Judge held that the second wife was the lawful widow. In a separate order, Jackie Yohn was adjudged to be an heir of the deceased. The latter order is not contested.
On appeal, the District Court held there was a fatal deficiency in the evidence which precluded a judicial determination that a common-law marriage was contracted and entered into by the first wife Myrtle and James Johnson. The Court then said:
In discussing the testimony of the first wife, Myrtle Paul, the District Court of Appeal observed:
In Roberts v. Roberts, supra, this Court enunciated the standards concerning the burden or quantum of proof where conflict in marriages are involved, saying:
The District Court of Appeal in its opinion in the case sub judice relied upon Quinn v. Miles, 124 So. 2d 883 (Fla.App. 1st, 1960), where the Court said:
In Quinn v. Miles, supra, the husband apparently had no grounds for divorce and resided in the State of Florida during all of his life.
The decisions have been in conflict on whether the first wife must show the absence of grounds for divorce in order to overcome the presumption of validity of the latest marriage. We take jurisdiction.
In discussing the rules previously announced concerning the presumptions and burden of proof involved in attacking the legality of the last marriage, this Court in Teel v. Nolen Brown Motors, 93 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1957), said:
In Johnson v. Johnson, 51 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1951), Mary, the first wife, introduced a certificate from the Bureau of Vital Statistics, showing that no divorce had been reported for the deceased. The Court held that Mary had rebutted the presumption of validity existing in favor of the second wife's marriage to the deceased. However, the Court discussed the testimony as follows:
In Hillyer &amp; Lovan v. Florida Industrial Commission, 155 Fla. 144, 19 So. 2d 838 (1944), the first wife introduced a certificate from the Bureau of Vital Statistics showing that no divorce had been granted in Florida. Documentary evidence to the same effect was introduced from the states of North Carolina and Tennessee, where the husband had worked "at short intervals." In addition, the evidence showed that the whereabouts of the first wife were known at all times by the deceased. These circumstances rebutted the presumption of validity of the second marriage.
In the first appearance of King v. Keller, 117 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1960), the only question involved was whether the first wife should make a more exhaustive search of the public records in order to overcome the presumption of the validity of a second marriage. This Court in its opinion said:
The cause was remanded with directions that the first wife be allowed to present additional evidence to rebut the presumption of the validity of the second marriage.
On its second appearance, King v. Keller, 141 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1962), this Court discussed the applicable principles in the following language:
*295 The record in the case sub judice is absolutely clear that the first wife deserted her husband and he had no contact with her for more than ten years. In fact, her whereabouts were unknown to him. Although it is not necessary for the first wife to show that the husband had no ground on which to seek a divorce, this fact has been accepted as relevant in showing the absence of a divorce. By the same token, the presence of grounds for divorce should be given great consideration by the Court in weighing the evidence seeking to overcome the presumption of the validity of the second marriage.
When the existence of the grounds for divorce is considered in connection with the statements of Carl Yohn that he was not married, his affidavit that he was divorced from his first wife, the absence of the first wife for more than ten years, her whereabouts being unknown, together with the fact that he was a seaman and employed in states other than the State of Florida, and the absence of certificates showing no divorce in Mississippi and Illinois, it is apparent that the trial court was justified in finding that the second wife was the lawful wife of decedent at the time of his death. The evidence when weighed collectively does not establish the absence of a reasonable probability that Carl Yohn actually secured a divorce. The burden of overcoming the presumption of validity of the second marriage was upon the first wife, even though she was required to prove a negative. J.J. Cater Furniture Co. v. Banks, 152 Fla. 377, 11 So. 2d 776 (1943).
It is elementary that the theories or reasons assigned by the lower court as its basis for the order or judgment appealed from, although sometimes helpful, are not in any way controlling on appeal and the Appellate Court will make its own determination as to the correctness of the decision of the lower court, regardless of the reasons or theories assigned therefor. Therefore, if the lower court assigns an erroneous reason for its decision the decision will be affirmed where there is some other different reason or basis to support it. See cases cited, 1 F.L.P., Appeals, § 148. Although the evidence may have been insufficient to invalidate the first ceremonial marriage to Myrtle Paul because of the failure to show a purported prior existence of a common-law marriage, the strong presumption existing in favor of the validity of the second ceremonial marriage to Margaret has not been overcome by Myrtle Paul.
The order finding that Jackie Yohn, or Jack Bert Yohn, is the son and heir-at-law of the decedent and entitled as such to participate in the distribution of the estate was not questioned on appeal.
That portion of the opinion of the District Court holding that the first wife Myrtle Paul was the lawful wife of the decedent and now the widow entitled to share in the assets of his estate is quashed.
This cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal with instructions that the orders of the County Judge of Escambia County, Florida, be
Affirmed.
ERVIN, C.J., and THORNAL and CARLTON, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
BOYD, Justice (specially concurring).
When Margaret Yohn, who had lived with the deceased for several months before his death produced proof that she had been formally married to him, this created a presumption she was the lawful widow and entitled to a portion of the estate as prescribed by statute.
When Myrtle Yohn proved she entered a ceremonial marriage with the deceased in 1955 in Mississippi and swore she was legally qualified to enter such marriage and *296 that she had not been divorced from him, the presumption favoring Margaret Yohn, the more recent wife, vanished. The burden of proof then shifted to Margaret Yohn to prove her marriage to be legally sufficient and to have a status superior to Myrtle Yohn's. This could have been done by proving Carl Yohn had been legally divorced from Myrtle before Margaret's marriage to Carl Yohn or by establishing that the 1955 marriage of Carl to Myrtle was invalid because one or both were already legally married at the time and thus unable to acquire a new spouse. Margaret prevailed because there was ample proof to establish Myrtle had become the wife of one James Johnson by a common law relationship sometime before marrying Carl Yohn. This common law marriage to Johnson was not terminated by divorce.
Myrtle and one James Johnson had lived together for about six or eight weeks, renting a house and otherwise representing to relatives and friends they had established a common law marriage. This common law marriage to Johnson was not terminated by divorce prior to Myrtle's "marriage" to Carl Yohn.
Since the 1955 marriage to Myrtle was invalid, the 1966 marriage to Margaret was valid and was controlling here. Carl was legally qualified to marry Margaret only because his marriage to Myrtle was void due to her being the wife of Johnson at the time she married Yohn. Her abandonment of the marriage and failure to communicate were wholly immaterial in determining her interest here.
The institution of marriage has been a cornerstone of western civilization for thousands of years and is the most important type of contract ever formed. When courts construe contracts of marriage, great care and caution must be exercised to preserve both rights of the family involved and the public generally.
A legal marriage can be terminated only by divorce, annulment or death of one of the marriage partners. It cannot be dissolved by abandonment of it by either or both partners. The reason for this is that the State is a party to the formation of a marriage and must consent before the husband and wife may be released from it.
When a person presents proof of a valid marrige to the deceased which is prior to another marriage of a third person to the same deceased person, I feel the one claiming under the later marriage should have the burden of proving a superior status by showing the prior marriage was either dissolved by divorce or annulment or that it was invalid from the beginning because the parties were not legally able to enter such marriage contract.