THOMAS BRETTI, APPELLANT,
v.
GAIL MACDONALD, APPELLEE; THOMAS BRETTI, PETITIONER, V. HONORABLE FRANCIS X. KNUCK, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award temporary joint custody to a mother when a Texas court had recently awarded sole custody to the father after a jury trial, and the child was in Florida only temporarily. The Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of prohibition and dismissed the Florida action, holding that Florida had no basis to relitigate custody decisions already made by Texas under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
The Florida circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have dismissed the mother's custody motion. The writ of prohibition was granted, the temporary custody order was quashed, and the cause was dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
[1] A Florida court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody matter when a court of another state has already issued a valid custody decree and the child and cu…
[2] Florida courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction over child custody matters when another state's court has recently considered and rejected the same "exceptional ci…
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“One of the express purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act is to '[a]void relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this state insofar as feasible.'”
Establishes the foundational principle that Florida courts cannot relitigate custody matters already decided by another state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father was awarded custody of a minor child by a Texas court following a jury trial on July 1, 1986. He brought the child to Florida in late summe…
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 Custody Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, father of a minor child, was awarded custody of the child by a July 1, 1986 decree of a Texas court after a jury trial.1 He brought the child to Florida in the late summer for a temporary stay and while here was served, on September 12, 1986, with a Rule to Show Cause, issued on the mother’s motion. At the hearing on the Rule to Show Cause the court entered a “Temporary Custody Order” awarding “temporary joint custody.”
By subsequent pleadings, including a sworn motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the father made the court aware of the Texas proceedings and the judgment of the Texas court. The father’s motion to dismiss was denied.
We grant the writ of prohibition and dismiss the cause of action for want of subject matter jurisdiction on authority of Mondy v. Mondy, 428 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1983), Prickett v. Prickett, 498 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and Greene v. Greene, 432 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The mother argues that, even if Florida is not the child’s home state, section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1985), provides for jurisdiction when there are exceptional circumstances. However, the “exceptional circumstances” upon which the mother relies are the same circumstances which the Texas court recently considered and, obviously, rejected. One of the express purposes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act is to “[ajvoid relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this state insofar as feasible.” Section 61.1304(6), Florida Statutes (1985). The circuit court should have refused to exercise jurisdiction over the mother’s motion for custody where the Texas court had recently considered the same “exceptional circumstances,” and where the child and petitioner-custodial parent were in Florida only temporarily.
The circuit court’s order awarding temporary custody is quashed and the cause is dismissed.
. Texas law provides for jury trials in child custody matters.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 654 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…(d), Fla.Stat. (1993). Consequently, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under section 61.1308 of the UCCJA to make a determination regarding the husband’s visitation rights. See Kennedy, 559 So. 2d at 713; Bretti v. MacDonald, 501 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Suarez Ortega v. Pujals de Suarez, 465 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Because the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the child custody matter at the time it rendered the final judgment of dissolution, the p…
-
Karen Chaddick f/n/a Karen Monopoli v. Monopoli, 677 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…family and the other involved the Lyons family. The cases were consolidated for purposes of Virginia's UCCJA. . See Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 654 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Alvarez v. Alvarez, 566 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Bretti v. MacDonald, 501 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Meyers v. Meyers, 430 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brown v. Tan, 395 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). . Sommer v. Sommer, 508 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Nussbaumer v. Nussbaumer, 442 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). . See…
-
Mirtha Castellvi Alvarez v. Alvarez, 566 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ing required in order to establish jurisdiction under the “significant connection” test of paragraph 61.1308(l)(b) is a relatively high one. In two decisions, our court has suggested that exceptional circumstances must be shown. Bretti v. MacDonald, 501 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Nelson v. Nelson, 433 So. 2d at 1020 (quoting Hegler v. Hegler, 383 So. 2d 1134, 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)). While "exceptional circumstances” is not part of the statutory text, the comment to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisd…
Authorities Cited
- Mondy v. Mondy, 428 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1983)
- Greene v. Greene, 432 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Caren Brenda Prickett v. Prickett, 498 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)