Ryan v. Ryan
277 So. 2d 266 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's 'no-fault' dissolution of marriage statute, which establishes that a marriage is 'irretrievably broken' as the ground for dissolution, does not unconstitutionally impair the obligation of marriage contracts, is not void for vagueness, and may be constitutionally applied to marriages entered into before its enactment.
Facts:
- William R. Ryan and Rose E. Ryan were a married couple in Florida.
- Their marriage was entered into before July 1, 1971.
- A dispute arose between the spouses, which led one party to seek the termination of the marriage.
- A legal proceeding for the dissolution of their marriage was initiated under Florida's new 'no-fault' divorce statute, Chapter 61, which became effective on July 1, 1971.
Procedural Posture:
- William R. Ryan filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Rose E. Ryan in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, a state trial court.
- During the proceedings, the constitutionality of Florida's new 'no-fault' dissolution of marriage law, Chapter 61, was challenged.
- The Circuit Court, finding the constitutional questions to be of great public importance, certified three questions of law to the Supreme Court of Florida for resolution before proceeding further.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is Florida's 'no-fault' dissolution of marriage law (Chapter 61), which replaces fault-based grounds with a finding that the marriage is 'irretrievably broken,' unconstitutional because it impairs the obligation of pre-existing marriage contracts, is impermissibly vague, or applies retroactively?
Opinions:
Majority - Dekle, J.
No, the 'no-fault' dissolution of marriage law is constitutional. The statute does not impair the obligation of contracts because potential property interests arising from marriage, such as dower or alimony, are not vested rights but mere expectancies that the legislature has the power to modify or eliminate. The statutory standard of 'irretrievably broken' is not unconstitutionally vague, as it is no less definite than the prior 'extreme cruelty' standard and requires a judicial determination based on evidence that the marriage is beyond repair, not merely a party's unilateral assertion. Finally, applying the law to marriages that predate it is not an improper retroactive application, because the state retains inherent police power to regulate marriage and divorce, and changing the grounds for dissolution is a permissible change of legal remedy.
Dissenting - Roberts, J.
Yes, the statute as interpreted by the majority is inequitable and should not be enforced without modification. Dissolution of marriage is a proceeding in equity, which has always been governed by the fundamental maxim that 'He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.' By abolishing traditional defenses like recrimination, the statute effectively eliminates the 'clean hands' doctrine, allowing a spouse who is entirely at fault for the breakdown of the marriage to obtain a divorce against the wishes of an innocent spouse. This permits a wrongdoer to profit from their own misconduct, which violates the core principles of equity. The statute could be found constitutional only by retaining the 'clean hands' doctrine as a discretionary tool for judges.
Analysis:
This landmark decision solidified the constitutionality of 'no-fault' divorce in Florida, reflecting a major jurisprudential shift away from a fault-based system. By classifying marriage as a status subject to the state's broad police powers rather than a private contract with immutable terms, the court affirmed the legislature's authority to fundamentally alter the grounds for its dissolution. The ruling prioritized the reality of the marital relationship—whether it was factually over—above the misconduct of the parties, thereby streamlining the divorce process and reducing its adversarial nature. This case set a crucial precedent that influenced family law nationwide, cementing the move toward a no-fault model for marital dissolution.
