Legal Opinion
Coltun v. Coltun
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided September 22, 1964No. 63-889PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Per 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.. de Marigny…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Demarigny v. DemarignySupreme Court of Florida · 1949
- Ruger v. . HeckelNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Kirby v. KentMississippi Supreme Court · 1935
- Suiter v. SuiterOhio Court of Appeals · 1944
- Untermann v. UntermannNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kant v. KantDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1972
- Boyd v. BoydDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
- Kessler v. RayDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
- Boswell v. Boswell, Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Martin County1970