NORRIS OAKLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENIE OAKLEY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from that portion of a final judgment of dissolution requiring sale of the marital home and division of the proceeds. We determine that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the sale and reverse.
Sale of property held by tenants by the entireties being pursuant to partition, this relief was not sought by either party’s pleadings in this case. As established by Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a “trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine matters which are not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.” In addition to requiring appropriate pleadings, Florida courts have also mandated compliance with the due process steps found in Chapter 64 of the Florida Statutes. E.g., Bonifay v. Bonifay, 383 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sanders v. Sanders, 351 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The instant trial court lacked both imperatives, and thus exceeded its jurisdiction.
LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stonely v. Moore, 851 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ment should not have been entered on those counts. See Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod v. State, 711 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Williford v. Melbourne Commercial Devel, Inc., 682 So. 2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Oakley v. Oakley, 439 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Second, summary judgment should not have been entered on count two, which was a claim for a constructive or resulting trust. The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of the statute of frauds. However, “constructive…
-
Smith v. Smith, 655 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…tal assets, and the husband should not have been permitted, over the wife’s objection, to present evidence to obtain relief that he did not pray for in his pleadings. See Griffin v. Griffin, 463 So. 2d 569, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Oakley v. Oakley, 439 So. 2d 1044, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The wife was placed at a severe disadvantage when the husband offered this evidence, as she was not prepared to offer evidence to controvert the husband’s t…
-
Rauch v. Rauch, 711 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ircuit court erred in failing to enforce the Texas order. Because of this, the Florida circuit court also erred in awarding custody to the Mother, especially in light of the fact that neither party requested such relief. See, e.g., Oakley v. Oakley, 439 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the Florida circuit court’s order and remand with instructions to enforce the Texas order awarding custody to the Father. REVERSED. GUNTHER, F…
Authorities Cited
- Sanders v. Sanders, 351 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Tykowski v. State, 398 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Bonifay v. Bonifay, 383 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- In re The Est. of John W. Finch, 383 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)