Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 826.02 (2025)
Exceptions.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
826.02 Exceptions.—The provisions of s. 826.01 shall not extend to any person:
(1) Who reasonably believes that the prior spouse is dead.
(2) Whose prior spouse has voluntarily deserted him or her and remained absent for the space of 3 years continuously, the party marrying again not knowing the other to be living within that time.
(3) Whose bonds of matrimony have been dissolved.
(4) Who violates its provisions because a domestic or foreign court has entered an invalid judgment purporting to terminate or annul the prior marriage and the defendant does not know that judgment to be invalid.
(5) Who reasonably believes that he or she is legally eligible to remarry.
History.—s. 5, sub-ch. 8, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2604; s. 1, ch. 4963, 1901; GS 3527; RGS 5417; CGL 7560; s. 1, ch. 73-300; s. 45, ch. 74-383; s. 1280, ch. 97-102.
Note.—Former s. 799.02.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1986–2011 · leading case: Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011).
Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011). “Moreover, by placing the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence on the probationer to prove inability to pay, the Legislature acted in accord with its constitutional power to create an affirmative defense, which includes the ability to place on a defendant a clear…”
Rubin v. State, 490 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “(1985) (codification of rule that good faith reliance on court order is complete defense to illegal wiretap prosecution); § 826.02(4), Fla. Stat. (1985) (codification of rule that good faith reliance on invalid divorce decree is complete defense to bigamy prosecution), and that,…”
Toro v. State, 712 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “We hold that evidence of appellant’s marriage to Debra while appellant had a living spouse (Diana), though it was similar fact evidence of other crime, was admissible under section 90.”
— 826.02(2) — 1 case
Toro v. State, 712 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “We hold that evidence of appellant’s marriage to Debra while appellant had a living spouse (Diana), though it was similar fact evidence of other crime, was admissible under section 90.”
— 826.02(4) — 1 case
Rubin v. State, 490 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “(1985) (codification of rule that good faith reliance on court order is complete defense to illegal wiretap prosecution); § 826.02(4), Fla. Stat. (1985) (codification of rule that good faith reliance on invalid divorce decree is complete defense to bigamy prosecution), and that,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.