ALESSANDRA ALMEYDA
v.
JIMMY ALMEYDA
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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's judgment in a family law matter involving residency and personal jurisdiction. The court relied on established precedent regarding how residency can be established through testimony and documentary evidence.
The trial court's findings regarding residency and personal jurisdiction were supported by competent, substantial evidence and were properly affirmed.
“We conclude that the Wife's testimony and the production of the Wife's Florida driver's license provided competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings as to the Wife's residency and the court's jurisdiction, and we affirm.”
Establishes that testimony and a driver's license constitute competent, substantial evidence of residency for jurisdictional purposes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute regarding a party's residency status in Florida. The trial court heard testimony and reviewed documentary evidence, includ…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Rowland v. Rowland, 868 So. 2d 608, 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“We conclude that the Wife's testimony and the production of the Wife's Florida driver's license provided competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings as to the Wife's residency and the court's jurisdiction, and we affirm.”); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 915 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“We agree with the trial court's conclusion that the husband was a resident of Florida. Even though the husband's physical presence in Florida over the year preceding the filing of the petition was de minimis, the trial court correctly determined the ‘chief seat of the husband's affairs and interests’ remains in Florida, creating presence and the requisite objective intent to be a Florida resident.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rowland v. Debrah Rae Rowland, 868 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 915 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)