MICHAEL JONATHAN GILLIS, PETITIONER,
v.
PRUDENCE ANNE CLARE GILLIS, RESPONDENT
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.
A Florida trial court had jurisdiction to hear a child support petition filed by a United Kingdom resident against her ex-husband who had relocated to Florida, but the court abused its discretion by directing the husband to respond rather than staying the Florida proceedings pending the English court's determination of the same issue.
The Florida trial court had jurisdiction over the child support petition, but it abused its discretion by directing the husband to respond without staying the Florida proceedings pending completion of the English court's determination of child support.
[1] A Florida court may have jurisdiction over a child support action even if divorce proceedings involving the same parties are pending in a foreign country.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to stay proceedings in Florida when a foreign court has prior jurisdiction over the same child support issue and the matter…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We do not agree with the husband's contention that the trial court does not have jurisdiction of this cause.”
Establishes that Florida courts have jurisdiction to hear child support petitions even when involving foreign residents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael and Prudence Gillis, both United Kingdom residents, were involved in divorce proceedings in England that resulted in a divorce judgment. The w…
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 Petition For Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Gillis and Prudence Gillis (petitioner and respondent, respectively) are subjects and residents of the United Kingdom. Mrs. Gillis instituted divorce proceedings in England, which resulted in a judgment of divorce. Her request for child support was not ruled upon at that time and is presently pending in England. In the interim, the husband came to Dade County where he presently resides on a non-immigrant visa. Thereupon, the wife, through Miami counsel, filed a petition in the trial court in Dade County seeking child support. The husband moved to dismiss the petition, alleging that under the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine the English court, having prior jurisdiction of the child support question, has rendered the Dade County court without jurisdiction of the cause. The motion came on for hearing, at which time the wife moved to abate pending the outcome of the action in England. Thereupon the trial court deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss and abated the action pending determination by the English court. When the cause was not determined in about four months, the wife’s attorney moved for hearing on the deferred motion to dismiss. After hearing thereon, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and directed the husband to respond to the petition for child support. That order is the subject of this petition for writ of certiorari.
We do not agree with the husband’s contention that the trial court does not have jurisdiction of this cause. Ciociola v. Cioci ola, 302 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). However, we must quash that portion of the trial court’s order which directed the husband to respond to the petition for child support. Clearly, the English court had prior jurisdiction and the question of child support is presently pending therein. To avoid a duplication of the proceedings in both England and Florida, the trial court should have exercised its sound discretion and stayed the Florida proceedings pending determination of the question in England. See: New Plan Realty Trust v. The Towers Apartments, Inc., 350 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). By failing to do so, under the facts of the instant case, the trial court abused its discretion.
Therefore, we hereby quash the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court, with directions to stay the proceedings in the trial court pending completion of Case No. 15586 of 1975, Family Division, in the High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom, relative to child support.
Quashed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schwartz v. DeLOACH, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ertiorari to quash orders declining to stay cases in favor of prior actions pending in other jurisdictions. Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for review dismissed, 427 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1983); Gillis v. Gillis, 391 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Respondents rely almost entirely upon ITT-Community Development Corp. v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 350 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1978), in which our sister court held: Nor did the trial cour…
-
Sarosh S. Dhondy v. Schimpeler, 528 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…which was indeed well-taken at the time) is not, as occurred below upon the lower judge’s own motion in purging his docket, the dismissal of the later proceeding but rather its abatement pending the disposition of the earlier case. Gillis v. Gillis, 391 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Chemical Realty Corp. v. Flagler Center Bldg., 388 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Birnholz v. Steisel, 338 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); 1 Fla.Jur.2d Actions §§ 67-72 (1977).2 The distinction is particularly meaningful in these…
-
Shooster v. BT Orlando Ltd. P'ship, 766 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…453 So. 2d at 455, citing as an example, Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. dism., 427 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1983), receded from on other grounds, Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gillis v. Gillis, 391 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We find that under Florida procedural law the federal court exercised jurisdiction over the cause first with the earlier service of process. For the above stated reasons, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order…
Authorities Cited
- Wahrburg v. Super X Drugs OF Fla., Inc., 302 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Ciociola v. Sol J. Ciociola, 302 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- NEW Plan Realty Tr. v. The Towers Apts., Inc., 350 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)