PATRICIA FRAZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM H. FRAZIER, 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.
Patricia Frazier appealed a non-final order denying her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Florida. The court held that by filing suit in Florida solely to enforce Connecticut money judgments, Frazier did not subject herself to Florida jurisdiction for alimony and child support modifications, and that her ex-husband must pursue such modifications in Connecticut.
The court reversed, holding that filing suit in Florida to enforce foreign money judgments does not subject a party to Florida jurisdiction for modification of alimony and child support obligations. Such modifications must be pursued in the state where personal jurisdiction can be properly acquired, which is Connecticut in this case.
[1] A party seeking to enforce a foreign money judgment in Florida does not thereby submit to the jurisdiction of Florida courts for the purpose of litigating unrelated issue…
[2] A party seeking to modify or terminate alimony and child support obligations must do so in a forum where personal jurisdiction can be acquired over the other party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When the appellant filed suit in Florida to enforce the foreign money judgments, she did not subject herself to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts for the purpose of litigating issues of future alimony and child support.”
Establishes the core holding that limited-purpose appearance for enforcement of judgments does not confer broader jurisdictional authority
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia and William Frazier were formerly married and resided in Connecticut. Patricia obtained two money judgments in Connecticut against William, 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 Enforcement Of Foreign Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal from a non-final order relating to jurisdiction over the person of appellant. Appellant and appellee were formerly married and resided in the State of Connecticut. Appellant secured two money judgments in Connecticut against appellee who subsequently moved to the State of Florida. Appellant filed suit in Florida to enforce the Connecticut judgments, and appellee counterclaimed and filed a separate action asserting the existence of a previous divorce judgment between the same parties. Appellee sought to establish the foreign divorce judgment in the State of Florida and to modify it by eliminating the requirements that he support his minor children and pay alimony. Appellee admitted that he had not been supporting his children. Appellant moved to dismiss asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction over her and her children to determine issues of alimony and support. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. We reverse.
When the appellant filed suit in Florida to enforce the foreign money judgments, she did not subject herself to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts for the purpose of litigating issues of future alimony and child support. If the appellee wishes to terminate his alimony and child support obligations, he must do so where he can acquire personal jurisdiction in an appropriate forum. This is clearly in the State of Connecticut rather than Florida. Although not specifically applicable, we conclude that Section 61.1316, Florida Statutes (1981), is instructive. The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on jurisdictional grounds.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
HERSEY, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baggett v. Walsh, 510 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…n respect to matters of support. Id.; see also Koon v. Boulder County, 494 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1986); Over-cash v. Overcash, 466 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (wife could not pursue under UCCJA her claim relating to child support); Frazier v. Frazier, 442 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (wife’s suit filed in Florida to enforce a foreign money judgment did not subject her to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts for the purpose of litigating issues of future alimony and support). Since nothing in chapter 61 auth…1 / 2
-
Marline Gibbons v. Brown, 716 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…it in Florida should not act indefinitely as a sword of Damocles hanging perilously over the head of that defendant if she later challenges jurisdiction in a separate suit (albeit a suit arising from the same subject matter). See Frazier v. Frazier, 442 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (former wife, who lived in Connecticut, did not subject herself to jurisdiction of Florida court for purpose of litigating issues of future alimony of child support raised by former husband’s counterclaim when she filed suit in F…
-
Edwards v. Johnson, 569 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…urt subjects himself to the jurisdiction of that court, and to such lawful orders which are thereafter entered, only with respect to the subject matter of the action. Burden v. Dickman, 547 So. 2d 170, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Frazier v. Frazier, 442 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), a nonresident plaintiff sued in Florida to enforce certain foreign money judgments against her ex-husband. The husband counterclaimed, seeking to modify the parties’ foreign dissolution decree, and wife’s motion to dismiss for l…