JOANNE L. COOK, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT J. COOK, 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.
Joanne Cook appeals a non-final order denying her motion to dismiss her husband's dissolution of marriage petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and inconvenient forum. The court affirmed the denial of the motion as to the dissolution itself but reversed as to child custody and support matters, holding that Florida courts lack personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state spouse regarding those issues when service is by publication.
A Florida court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for dissolution of marriage where the petitioner meets residency requirements and properly serves process by publication, but the court does not thereby obtain personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state spouse regarding child custody and support issues. The lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to decline jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum statute.
[1] A Florida court has jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage if the petitioner meets residency requirements and service of process is properly made by publication.
[2] A Florida court that dissolves a marriage based on service by publication does not obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state spouse for issues of child custody an…
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“a Florida court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for dissolution of marriage where the petitioner meets the residency requirements and properly serves process by publication; however, the court does not thereby obtain personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state spouse with regard to issues of child custody and support”
Establishes the core holding that jurisdiction over dissolution does not extend to child custody and support when service is by publication only
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Joanne Cook and the parties' children have resided continuously in Texas since 1979. Appellee Albert Cook established residency in Florida a…
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 Inconvenient Forum cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
Joanne L. Cook appeals a non-final order denying her motion to dismiss dissolution of marriage proceedings on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and inconvenient forum. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant and the parties’ children have resided in Texas, continuously, since 1979. Appellee/husband established his residency in Florida and filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the lower court. Service of process on appellant was by publication pursuant to § 49.011(4), Florida Statutes (1985). In his petition, appellee requested that the Florida court exercise jurisdiction and dissolve the marriage; grant appellant custody of the children; grant appellee reasonable visitation rights; and grant appellant child support. Appellant responded to the petition by filing (1) a notice of appearance for the limited purpose of determining venue and jurisdiction and (2) a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction under § 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1985), or, in the alternative, because Florida is an inconvenient forum under § 61.1316, Florida Statutes (1985). The appealed order denies appellant’s motion to dismiss.
We conclude that the lower court was correct in denying the motion to dismiss as it pertained to the action for dissolution of marriage, but erred in purporting to exercise jurisdiction over the matters of child custody and support. The law is well settled that a Florida court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for dissolution of marriage where the petitioner meets the residency requirements and properly serves process by publication; however, the court does not thereby obtain personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state spouse with regard to issues of child custody and support. Carnes v. Carnes, 256 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Adams v. Adams, 218 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). The lower court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the action as a whole, but did err in denying the motion as to child custody and support.
We further find that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to decline the exercise of its jurisdiction under § 61.1316, Florida Statutes (1985), the inconvenient forum section of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doherty v. Doherty, 528 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…pecific issue or argument as to absence of personal service of process on her or evidence affecting the exercise of jurisdiction to determine child custody, support, and obligations of each party with respect to debts and property. Cf. Cook v. Cook, 524 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st [*546] DCA 1988). We therefore do not reach those issues. Affirmed. MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Adams v. Lexine L. Adams, 218 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Carnes v. Carnes, 256 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)