DANIEL T. GILMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS DANIEL TRIMBLE GILMAN, II.,
v.
VES H. MORGAN AND BESSIE H. MORGAN, HIS WIFE
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 Supreme Court reversed a lower court's custody decision granting a habeas corpus petition based on an Iowa court judgment. The court held that the Iowa court lacked jurisdiction over the custody matter because the children (the res) were not present in Iowa when the judgment was entered, and therefore the judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution.
The Iowa judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit because the Iowa court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. In custody cases involving minors, jurisdiction requires the presence of the minors (the res) within the court's jurisdiction; service of process on those having custody is insufficient. The lower court erred in giving effect to the Iowa decree.
“In this class of cases jurisdiction connotes something more than process upon those who have custody of the minors. The minors are the res and without their presence within the jurisdiction of the court its judgment cannot be enforced and is a nullity.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that in custody cases, the minors are the subject matter and their physical presence within the court's jurisdiction is required for valid jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel T. Gilman's two sons, ages eleven and fifteen, had been in the custody of their maternal grandparents, Ves H. Morgan and his wife, in Iowa sinc…
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 U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Petition for habeas corpus was filed in Orange County^by Ves. H. Morgan and his wife to gain the custody of their two grandsons, ages eleven and fifteen years. Petitioners-appellees are the maternal grandparents of the children and seek to wrest custody of the boys from their father, Daniel T. Gil-man.
The lower court granted the writ and awarded custody to appellees because of a judgment entered in the District Court of Iowa on March 11, 1946.
Appellees were residing in Iowa and had had custody of the children since infancy. The mother of the children died and with the father/s consent the children were left with their grandparents although no adoption or court order, fixing custody in appellees, was ever entered. The children were allowed to visit their father, who resides in Florida, and during the visit they elected to remain with him. The father was called to Iowa to attend the funeral of his father and while there process, involving custody of the children, was served upon him in a case brought by the appellees. The case proceeded to judgment against the father but during the *607suit," at all times, the children remained in Florida. While the Iowa case was pending the father’s residence was in Florida and during that time the children resided with him. When process was served upon him a temporary order, requiring that he deliver the children to the appellees, was entered and as a penalty for failure to obey the order he was precluded from introducing any evidence. Thereafter his attorneys withdrew his appearance in the case and made no effort to contest the issue. Although appellee’s attorneys announced that they would waive the penalty feature of the order, no testimony was introduced except that offered by appellees.
It becomes necessary for us to determine whether the Iowa judgment is entitled to full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1, Constitution of the United States. If the Iowa court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter its judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit and, as to that question, we have the power to ascertain. William et al v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 65 Sup. Ct. 1092, 89 L. Ed. 1577, 157 A.L.R. 1366; Esenwein v. Pennsylvania, ex rel Esenwein, 325 U.S. 279, 65 Sup. Ct., 1118, 89 L. Ed. 1608, 157 A.L.R. 1396 and 31 Am. Jur. page 162, Sec. 553 et seq.
In this class of cases jurisdiction connotes something more than process upon those who have custody of the minors. The minors are the res and without their presence within the jurisdiction of the court its judgment cannot be enforced and is a nullity. See Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So. 2d. 596; State ex rel Clark v. Clark, 148 Fla. 452, 4 So. 2d. 517; Bourn v. Hinsey et ux., 134 Fla. 404, 183 So. 614 and other authorities cited therein.
The question of the best interest of the children was not litigated in a truly adversary manner in the Iowa case. The Iowa court could not establish its jurisdiction by decreeing a penalty for disobedience of its order; neither could appellees supply the deficiency by a waiver of the penalty. Jurisdiction must be conferred by law.
It is our conclusion that the lower court erred by giving the Iowa decree the effect of precluding the parties from giving evidence prior to its date relative to the issue. The judg*608mertt is reversed with directions to proceed further, not incon sistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
THOMAS, C.J., BUFORD and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhoades v. Bohn, 114 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…157 Fla. 259, 25 So. 2d 658; Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So. 2d 596; State ex rel. Clark v. Clark, 148 Fla. 452, 4 So. 2d 517. .State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, supra note 3; Dahlke v. Dahlke, supra note 1; Gil-man v. Morgan, 158 Fla. 605, 29 So. 2d 372. . Marshal v. Bacon, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 252. . State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, supra note 3; Gilman v. Morgan, supra note 5. . Lambertson v. Williams, Fla.1952, 61 So. 2d 478. . Haas v. Haas, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 640. . Williams v. State of North…
-
Mirras v. Mirras, 202 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…upon the best interest and welfare of the child before the New York court at the time of its decree. Nor was any evidence considered with reference to the appellee’s qualifications for custody of the child. As held in Gilman v. Morgan, 158 Fla. 605, 29 So. 2d 372: The question of the best interest of the child not having been litigated in a truly adversary manner in the foreign state, its decree would not be recognized or given effect by the Florida court. The issue of custody of the minor child of the par…
-
Milligan v. Wilson, 107 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…the subject matter and over the person sued is open to challenge and adjudication in the latter court. However, the validity of the judgment is generally determined by the law of the state of its rendition. See Gilman v. Morgan, 1947, 158 Fla. 605, 29 So. 2d 372, certiorari dismissed 331 U.S. 796, 67 S.Ct. 1740, 91 L.Ed. 1822; First Nat. Bank of Cresson, Pa. v. Brown, 1935, 119 Fla. 761, 162 So. 142; and Irving Trust Co. v. Kaplan, 1944, 155 Fla. 120, 20 So. 2d 351. In Florida, in a pleading where recovery…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1945)
- Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1943)
- Esenwein v. Commonwealth ex rel. Esenwein, 325 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1945)
- Bourn v. Hinsey, 134 Fla. 404 (Fla. 1937)
- State v. Clark, 148 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1941)
- Richardson v. Rogers & Middlebrooks, Inc., 148 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1941)