“Quickie” Divorce Law Under Fire In Florida

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27675, 3 June 1955, Page 10

“Quickie” Divorce Law Under Fire In Florida

(From a Reuter Correspondent)

MIAMI, (Florida). Florida’s quick divorce law, which has brought 80,000 marriages to an abrupt end in Miami alone since it was enacted in 1933, appears to be on the way out. Attacked by civic and welfare leaders for many years, and increasingly under fire from lawyers, the law now has been condemned by the State’s Governor, Mr Leroy Collins. He has asked the Legislature, which has just opened its session, to increase the 90-days’ residence requirement. Mr Collins said he joined with the Florida Circuit Judges’ Association, which proposed a minimum of one year’s residence.

The administration’s bill was introduced by Senator Russell Morrow, of Palm Beach County. The Governor’s message to the legislature underlined a situation which first became apparent 15 years ago when a scandalous divorce mill, involving a small group of lawyers, was uncovered in Dade County—the one in which Miami is situated.

Testimony showed that these lawyers frequently represented both sides in a divorce action, falsified evidence, and cut so many corners that the divorce was as simple as signing a name to a document. The investigation resulted in the disbarment of several lawyers. But the basic law, which opened the way to the abuses, remained unchanged. The reason was that the easy residence law attracted a large number of couples for divorces —hence “tourist money”. And tourism is Florida’s biggest industry. Divorce in 24 Hours Ninety days after establishing residence—often a hotel room—a person wishing to get rid of an undesirable mate could file suit for divorce and theoretically get it within 24 hours. Actually, some uncontested divorces were as speedy as that until criticism resulted in a policy on the part of some judges to wait two weeks before signing decrees. This opened the way to a new abuse. Many persons were not willing to spend 90 days in the county. Many had no intention of making their permanent home there, as the law required. There was evidence that the law was openly flouted. Persons came to Miami on vacation, registered in a hotel to establish residence, perhaps rented a post office box, sought a lawyer and went back home. Ninety days later

they returned, signed t he necessary papers for filing the divP? ce » stayed a few days more for a heading at which they swore they intended Miami permanently—an,d caught the next plane home after t“ e decree was issued. This situation, referred to jokingly as “taking the cure m many a tourist hotel looby, Resulted in an estimate in 1950 that per cent, of the divorces granted based on fraudulent and perjured testimony, or on collusion. ! Opposition to the laW_ Las been increasing. Just before the last legislature session in Tallahassee two years ,o, Florida circuit judges drafted a ill to require one-y® 3l *,. residence. They said the “quick l ® d /Y°. r< ; e made “hypocrites of the States Bar and Bench.” But the bill died m the legislature. Several Miami judS es have been particularly critical eff the law. In a speech that had .Hjtb-wide repercussions in 1953, Judgr- Vincent Giblin said, “Miami beach pas become a cesspool for New York shyster lawyers send sojourners here to obtain fraudulent divorces.*' , Later, Judge Giblih obtained the volunteer services of J\4r Abe Aronovictz, a lawyer, to study divorce cases filed in a nine month p’eribd of 1953. Mr Aronovictz • shortly afterwards was elected Mayor of Miami. His conclusion in a report to Judge Giblin was that “only 37 per cent, were above suspicion”. The Judge threatened to void all decrees in which 'perjury could be established. As a result of hiis steady campaign against divorces f<^ r “transients”, the number granted in this county in 1954 totalled 4682 compared with 5006 m 1953. In the first months of 1955, divorces had bee*? granted in 1107 cases, compared with 959 for the corresponding period 1954. It is this situation which has brought a strong appeal ,from Florida’s Governor. “It is careful judgment of the sociologist, ! the jurist, marriage counsellor, the clergyman and every serious student ofl the marriage and the family, that the duick divorce is detrimental to society” Mr Collins said in his message to tPe legislature. Referring to the Commercialisation of divorce through <he “quickie” law, he said: “To dally i n the marketplace of marriage severa^ ee 15 unworthy of our State.” / . I