PENNY BAKER CAPPAR, APPELLANT,

v.

RICHARD MICHAEL CAPPAR, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1981-08-12

Nos. 80-1754, 80-1755

Downey, J., Beranek, J., Glick-Stein, J.

402 So. 2d 1284 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1981) Positive Treatment

Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's grant of habeas corpus relief to father, holding that an Alabama court had jurisdiction to enter a temporary child custody order.

Holding

An Alabama court had jurisdiction to enter a temporary child custody order, and the trial court properly granted habeas corpus relief to the father based on that valid order.

Headnotes

[1] An Alabama court has jurisdiction to enter a temporary child custody order when the order is entered, and a Florida court may grant habeas corpus relief based on that val…

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

Facts & Procedural History

The parties were divorced in 1974 and became involved in domestic litigation in both Florida and Alabama regarding child custody. An Alabama court ent…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Judicial Jurisdiction Domestic Relations Child Custody Jurisdiction Habeas Corpus Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after habeas corpus proceedings. The issue presented by the parties for decision by the trial judge was whether an Alabama court order on child custody was valid. The trial court concluded that the Alabama court had jurisdiction when the order was entered. As such the court granted habeas corpus relief to the father and awarded custody to him. We find no error in the trial court's ruling.

This is an unfortunate situation where the parties have been involved in domestic litigation in both Florida and Alabama. Although the parties were divorced in 1974, there has never been a full hearing where either a Florida or an Alabama court considered the best interest of the child as bearing on child custody. This issue was pled in a petition for modification in the Florida court and scheduled for hearing in June, 1977. The same issue was again presented in an Alabama proceeding on which the court scheduled a hearing in August, 1980. Neither hearing ever occurred. The mother now wants the Florida court to decide the issue of child custody, and the father wants the Alabama court to decide it. We conclude that the Alabama court had jurisdiction when it entered the temporary custody order in April, 1979, and the Florida trial court acted appropriately herein in granting habeas corpus relief.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, BERANEK and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Mack Indus. Div. OF Hollywood Land Co., Inc. v. Frank J. Baker Gen. Contractor, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)

…aterials which were furnished pursuant to a contract with a general contractor does not automatically discharge the contractor from a judgment debt resulting from the contractor’s failure to pay. We agree. We held in Tropical Supply Co. v. Verchio, 402 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981): The mechanic’s lien law does not purport to change, except in a very limited way, the rights and duties arising out of a sale or a contract to pay money. That law does provide a security device in the form of a mechanic’s lien…
Se. Mun. Supply Co., Inc. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 552 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)

…Furthermore, the joint check, even if issued, would not constitute payment or [*262] tender as was found by the trial court until that check is received and endorsed or negotiated by Southeastern as a payee. See Tropical Supply Co., Inc. v. Verchio, 402 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Until such time, it is the property of all of the payees and as such could not constitute payment to Southeastern alone. C.f. Hendry v. Benlisa, 87 Fla. 609, 20 So. 800 (1896). In my opinion neither the evidence nor the law sup…
Hernandez v. Burleigh House Condo., Inc., 419 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw