VERA LORRAINE HOWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD EDWARD HOWELL, 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.
The court held that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act is irrelevant when a party does not seek custody, and Florida courts have jurisdiction for separate maintenance actions regardless of residency.
[1] The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and its residency requirements are irrelevant to a cause of action for separate maintenance when a party does not seek a determ…
[2] A Florida trial court's jurisdiction in a separate maintenance action under section 61.09, Florida Statutes, is not dependent on the domicile or residence of either 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 intelligenceThe appellant wife filed for alimony and child support unconnected with dissolution after bringing her children to Florida. The husband moved to dismi…
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 Separate Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant wife, Vera Lorraine Howell, challenges the order dismissing her amended petition for alimony and child support unconnected with dissolution. The trial court based its order on a lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. We reverse.
In September 1988, the appellant brought her four minor children to Florida from Missouri to visit her ailing father. In November 1988, the appellant filed a petition pursuant to section 61.09, Florida Statutes (1987), for alimony and child support without dissolution of marriage in which she sought temporary and permanent alimony, child support, and custody of the parties' four minor children. In December 1988, the appellee husband, Donald Edward Howell, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action and for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Florida was not the home state of the minor children as defined in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. The appellant then filed an amended petition in which she deleted her prayer for custody of the children. After hearing the matter, the trial court entered an order dismissing the appellant’s action pursuant to the Uniform Act.
Because the appellant did not seek a determination of custody in her amended petition, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and its residency requirements are irrelevant to the appellant’s cause of action for separate maintenance pursuant to section 61.09. Furthermore, the domicile or residence of either party in this state is unnecessary to a Florida trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction in a separate maintenance action. Martin v. Martin, 128 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1961); Weinschel v. Weinschel, 368 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (Florida courts have jurisdiction to entertain separate maintenance actions by nonresidents temporarily in Florida).
We reverse the order dismissing the appellant’s amended petition and remand with directions that said petition be reinstated.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrel Forrest v. Forrest, 839 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…nd 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. The issue in this case is personal jurisdiction (i.e., t…
-
Charmaine M. Bocarro v. Pinto, 912 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…India precluded her from bringing a separate maintenance action 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. Kipl…
Authorities Cited
- Champion v. Cochran, 128 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1961)
- The Lowell Dunn Co. v. Signal Eng'g Co. of Fla., 368 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)