LYNNE TOKAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY V. TOKAN, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of a venue challenge in a marriage dissolution proceeding, holding that venue lies in the county where the parties last lived together with intent to remain married, not where the husband unilaterally filed suit.
Venue in a marriage dissolution proceeding arises in the county where the husband and wife last lived together with a common intention to remain married.
[1] In a marriage dissolution proceeding, venue is proper in the county where the parties last resided together with a common intention to remain married, not in the county w…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“venue arises in that county where the husband and wife last lived with a common intention to remain married”
The court stated the controlling legal standard from Carroll v. Carroll for determining proper venue in marriage dissolution proceedings.
The parties were married in Dade County, Florida, but separated and moved to different counties. The wife moved to Orange County where the husband rej…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This interlocutory appeal, authorized by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A), brings for review an order denying the respondent wife’s motion challenging venue.
The parties were married in Dade County, Florida. Marital differences arose, with the wife leaving the husband and moving to Orange County, Florida. The husband followed her and the martial relationship was resumed. After some months, when differences arose again, the wife moved to Bre-vard County, Florida. The husband returned to Dade County and began proceedings for dissolution of the marriage. The wife moved to dismiss or abate the proceedings, the trial judge denied the motion, and this appeal followed. We reverse upon authority of Carroll v. Carroll, 341 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1977).
The Carroll case holds that in a marriage dissolution proceeding, venue arises in that county where the husband and wife last lived with a common intention to remain married. The husband’s contention that Dade County meets this test is untenable because it appears without conflict that the parties both left Dade County, although separately, and thereafter lived as husband and wife in Orange County for several months.
Therefore, the order denying the motion is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions (a) to consider the motion as one to transfer the cause pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.060, and (b) to grant the motion to transfer. Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tirrell v. Tirrell, 376 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. On the authority of Carroll v. Carroll, 341 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1977); see also Tokan v. Tokan, 373 So. 2d 955 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1979); Hoskins v. Hoskins, 363 So. 2d 179 (Fla. App.4th DCA 1978); Barr v. Barr, 343 So. 2d 1326 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1977), the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to transfer the case to Monroe County.…
Authorities Cited
- Vernell Carroll v. Carroll, 341 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1977)