JILL ROBIN LASKO KOENIG, APPELLANT,
v.
NATHANIEL H. KOENIG, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's decision to decline jurisdiction over a child custody and support modification case, holding that Florida had proper jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and should exercise it rather than defer to Tennessee.
The Florida court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and should exercise that jurisdiction rather than decline it pending Tennessee's decision to relinquish jurisdiction. The Tennessee appellate court's ruling that Florida is now the home state and Tennessee would lack jurisdiction to modify custody supports Florida's exercise of jurisdiction.
[1] A state court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a child custody matter if another state court has jurisdiction and is better situated to hear the case, even if th…
[2] A state court's decision to decline jurisdiction in a child custody case is reviewable on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The cooperative spirit expressed by both the Florida and Tennessee courts is commendable and is precisely what the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act seeks to engender.”
Establishes that the courts' coordination is aligned with statutory purposes but does not justify refusing jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1980, a Tennessee court awarded custody of the parties' minor child to the mother (appellant) and granted visitation to the father (appellee). The …
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 Comity Between States cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
In 1980 a Tennessee trial court entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding custody of the parties’ minor child to appellant and granting visitation rights to appellee. Later that year the wife and child moved to Florida and have been continually residing here since September, 1980. In April, 1981, the Tennessee court modified the husband’s visitation rights, so as to allow the child to visit his father in Tennessee during certain periods of each year. In September, 1982, an amended petition to establish foreign judgment and to modify child support and visitation provisions was filed by the wife in the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida. After a hearing on the petition, the Florida court entered an order which held that although it has jurisdiction in the matter (presumably on the basis of Section 61.1308(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes (1981)), it declines to exercise that jurisdiction “until such time as said Court in Tennessee declines to entertain jurisdiction over the issues of custody and child support.” That order is the subject of this appeal.
On the same day that the Florida court entered its order on jurisdiction, the husband filed a petition for contempt of court and change of custody in the Tennessee circuit court. In response, the wife filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Tennessee court’s order denying the motion to dismiss became the subject of an interlocutory appeal in which the Tennessee appellate court held that Florida is now the home state of the wife and child, and that Tennessee would no longer have jurisdiction for the purpose of modifying the original child custody order if the Florida court’s order declining to exercise jurisdiction were reversed.
The cooperative spirit expressed by both the Florida and Tennessee courts is commendable and is precisely what the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act seeks to engender. § 61.1304,. Fla.Stat. (1981). It is now clear, particularly owing to the ruling of the Tennessee appellate court, that there is no statutory impediment to the Florida court’s exercise of its jurisdiction to modify the child custody provision of the now domesticated Tennessee judgment. See § 61.1308(l)(a)l and § 61.-1314(1), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Remanded for further proceedings accordingly.