HORST RUDI WACHSMUTH, APPELLANT,
v.
HANNELORE L. WACHSMUTH, 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 German national husband appeals orders denying his motions to dismiss or stay a Florida alimony and child support proceeding initiated by his German wife who relocated to Florida with their children. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that Florida courts have jurisdiction over a separate maintenance action brought by a nonresident temporarily in the state.
Florida courts have jurisdiction to entertain the separate maintenance action unconnected with dissolution brought by the nonresident wife temporarily in the state. Forum non conveniens and comity principles do not require dismissal or stay of the proceedings, and the wife's right to support under Florida law is not supplanted by the parties' antenuptial agreement until there is a decree of dissolution.
[1] A Florida court has jurisdiction to entertain a separate maintenance action unconnected with dissolution, even if the petitioner is a nonresident temporarily residing in…
[2] A trial court may issue an order for temporary relief in a separate maintenance action upon proper notice to the respondent, even if the respondent is not present.
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“state courts have jurisdiction to entertain separate maintenance action unconnected with dissolution brought by nonresident temporarily in state”
Establishes the primary holding regarding Florida's jurisdictional authority over alimony and child support actions brought by temporary residents
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHorst and Hannelore Wachsmuth are German nationals who were married in Germany in 1977 and had two children, all German residents. They purchased a va…
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 Temporary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
Respondent appeals two non-final orders of the circuit court denying his motions to dismiss or stay proceedings initiated by his wife. One order involves questions of jurisdiction and of forum non conveniens, the other, a question of comity.
The parties are nationals of and have been residents of Germany. They were married on December 17, 1977, in Germany, having previously entered a premarital agreement. The agreement was modified in Germany at the wife’s request in 1980. The parties’ two surviving children are also German nationals and residents of Germany.
The parties vacationed frequently in this country and in 1984 purchased a vacation home in this country.
In 1986 the wife came to the Palm Beach County home on a visitor’s visa with both children. She has remained here since and has refused to return to Germany. The husband has taken the elder daughter back to Germany.
In 1987, the wife filed a petition in the circuit court for alimony and child support pursuant to section 61.09, Florida Statutes (1985). The petition is unconnected with dissolution. The trial court issued an order for temporary relief, although the husband was not present. According to the order, proper notice was served on the husband by the sheriff. The court also enjoined the husband from removing the younger daughter, who was to stay with the wife, from this jurisdiction and from harassing the wife.
The husband moved for relief from the above order, claiming lack of jurisdiction or in the alternative forum non conveniens. The motion was denied. Subsequent to the above motion the husband filed for divorce in Germany. He then filed a motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings here based on principles of comity. When this was denied, the husband appealed.
We affirm. See Weinschel v. Weinsckel, 368 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (state courts have jurisdiction to entertain separate maintenance action unconnected with dissolution brought by nonresident temporarily in state), and Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1972) (until there is decree of dissolution, wife’s support remains under the usual guidelines, unsupplanted by terms of antenuptial agreement).
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrel Forrest v. Forrest, 839 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…iss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court found that it had jurisdiction and entered an order granting the wife’s petition as it related to the support issue. As authority for its decision, the lower court cited Wachsmuth v. Wachsmuth, 528 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and Howell v. Howell, 545 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We have considered Wachsmuth and Howell, but deem them inapposite, as those cases resolve the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in separate mainte [*841] nance actions…
-
Topic v. Tamar Verduga Topic, 221 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…Merlyn Sacoto, was “contrary” to the Husband’s argument that the defense of forum non conveniens was not available to him as a defense to the Wife's section 61.09 petition. In its written order, the trial court further cited Wachsmuth v. Wachsmuth, 528 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In Wachsmuth, the wife, a German national, brought a petition under section 61.09 for alimony and child support unconnected to dissolution. After being served, the husband, a German national, raised forum non conveniens as a def…
-
Charmaine M. Bocarro v. Pinto, 912 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…tion against her husband, a Florida resident, for child support pursuant to section 61.09, Florida Statutes. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, it did not. See Howell v. Howell, 545 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Wachsmuth v. Wachsmuth, 528 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Weinschel v. Weinschel, 368 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Martin v. Martin, 128 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1961); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 125 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1960); Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So. 2d 870 (1941). The order under re…
Authorities Cited
- Annabelle G. Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1972)
- The Lowell Dunn Co. v. Signal Eng'g Co. of Fla., 368 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)