## Facts

- George Riley (husband), age 63, petitioned in July 1971 to dissolve a roughly 39–40 year marriage under Florida’s no-fault dissolution law, alleging the marriage was “irretrievably broken.”
- George testified the parties no longer lived together as husband and wife and that for 10–12 years the marriage lacked companionship, love, or affection.
- George described no major incidents of misconduct; he claimed the spouses remained together largely for their children, who were now adults.
- Mary Riley (wife) denied the marriage was irretrievably broken, asserted it had been satisfactory until spring 1971, and attributed the dispute to George’s involvement with another woman.
- Mary expressed willingness to reconcile and opposed dissolution.
- The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the marriage had not been proven irretrievably broken.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the husband’s dissolution petition for failure to prove the marriage was “irretrievably broken” under Florida’s no-fault dissolution statute.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the final judgment dismissing the petition and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial judge erred in concluding the husband failed to establish irretrievable breakdown based on the evidence of long-term marital deterioration.
- The court also held the trial court should not have dismissed the petition without using statutory procedures designed to assess and encourage possible reconciliation (e.g., counseling or a temporary suspension of proceedings).

## Legal Principles

- In determining whether a marriage is “irretrievably broken,” the court must consider the marriage as a whole, with the central question being the realistic possibility of reconciliation.
- Dissolution is appropriate when the court is satisfied the parties can no longer live together because their difficulties are so deep and substantial that no reasonable effort could restore a normal marital relationship.
- Irretrievable breakdown does not require proof of specific marital fault or dramatic misconduct; a sustained absence of affection and marital functioning can suffice.
- When one spouse asserts the marriage is over and the other seeks reconciliation, the court should consider statutorily authorized reconciliation-oriented measures rather than summarily dismissing the petition.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a broader, relationship-focused application of Florida’s “irretrievably broken” standard and held that long-standing emotional disintegration may establish irretrievable breakdown; it reversed the dismissal because the trial court failed to apply that standard and failed to employ statutory mechanisms to evaluate reconciliation before terminating the case.


Riley v. Riley, 271 So. 2d 181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1972)