🚀 go-pugleaf

Sherry Adler of Florida case re: annulment / divorce appeal in public record
at the 2nd District Court of Appeal
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/November%2016,%202001/2d01-215.pdf

Sherry Adler file can be viewed at the Hillsborough County Courthouse in
Tampa Florida case  # 98-012423
Some of it can also be viewed online at
http://www.hillsclerk.com/PublicWeb/search_official_records.aspx
and at
http://www.hillsclerk.com/publicweb/Search_Court_Records.aspx


Excerpt: "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."


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CASE NO. 2D01-215


SHERRY ADLER,
Appellant,


v.


MR. ADLER,
Appellee.
_______________________________


Opinion filed November 16, 2001.


Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County;


In this dissolution proceeding, Sherry Adler appeals the trial court's
partial final judgment of annulment entered in favor her husband. 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.


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.