Roberts v. Roberts, 414 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Roberts v. Roberts, 414 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Waite v. Waite (fladistctapp, 1992-02-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Waite v. Waite
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Family harmony does not exist for the Waites; they have no dependents or children, unlike the parties in Roberts v. Roberts, 414 So.2d 190, 191 (Fla. 1982), where the court held that a tort claim was barred because the claim "could adversely affect the dependent family beneficiaries, particularly minor children." In Fitzgibbon , the court did not permit the spouse to recover from her deceased husband's insurer because the policy contained a family exclusion clause.
discussed Cited "see" McAdam v. Thom
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roberts v. Roberts, 414 So.2d 190, 191 (Fla. 1982); but see Waite v. Waite, 593 So.2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding doctrine of interspousal tort immunity did not bar wife's post-dissolution suit against her former husband).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Willa Mae ROBERTS, Petitioner,
v.
Michael W. ROBERTS, Respondent.
59240.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Apr 29, 1982.
414 So. 2d 190
Overton.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

[*191] Gerald A. McGill of Wells, Brown & Brady, Pensacola, for petitioner.

Harry Lewis Michaels, Tallahassee, for respondent.

OVERTON, Judge.

Petitioner, Willa Mae Roberts, sued Michael W. Roberts as personal representative of her deceased husband's estate, alleging that during their marriage the decedent husband intentionally injured her. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the estate on the basis of interspousal immunity. The First District Court of Appeal, in its decision reported at 382 So.2d 376, affirmed the summary judgment and certified pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES THE DOCTRINE OF INTERSPOUSAL IMMUNITY BAR SUIT BY ONE FORMER SPOUSE AGAINST A DECEASED SPOUSE'S ESTATE WHEN AN INTENTIONAL TORT ALLEGEDLY WAS COMMITTED DURING THE MARRIAGE WHICH NOW HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY THE ALLEGED TORTFEASOR SPOUSE'S DEATH?

We refused to modify the interspousal immunity doctrine in Hill v. Hill, 415 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1982), to allow intentional interspousal tort claims because the doctrine is necessary to protect family unity and resources.

To allow a tort claim against the decedent spouse's estate would only add a unique factor to probate of an estate which would not be allowable if the decedent party were living. This could adversely affect dependent family beneficiaries, particularly minor children.

We reject modification of the interspousal immunity doctrine in this circumstance, answer the question in the affirmative, and approve the district court of appeal decision.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, J., dissent.