JULIAN C.H. DUNLOP, APPELLANT,
v.
JILL DUNLOP, 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 Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a Massachusetts-resident husband in a child support modification action. The court held that occasional visits to Florida for visitation purposes do not establish sufficient minimum contacts or satisfy the statutory requirements for jurisdiction in child support matters under Florida law.
Florida courts lack personal jurisdiction over the husband because he neither maintained a matrimonial domicile in Florida nor resided in the state before or at the time the wife commenced the action. Occasional visits to Florida for visitation do not establish residency or sufficient minimum contacts to confer jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute for child support modifications.
[1] Making child support payments under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act (URESA) does not confer personal jurisdiction in an action to modify support.
[2] A matrimonial domicile in Florida at the time of the commencement of a child support action, or residence in Florida preceding the action, subjects a defendant to the jur…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Both parties agree that the act of making child support payments under URESA does not confer personal jurisdiction in an action to modify support.”
Establishes the critical agreement between parties that URESA payments alone cannot establish jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married in New York and divorced in London fourteen years later. The wife and two minor children have resided in Florida since before…
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 Matrimonial Domicile cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
The husband appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The parties were married in New York and divorced fourteen years later in London. The wife and their two minor children have lived in Florida since before the divorce. Throughout the marriage the husband lived out of the country, but now lives in Massachusetts and occasionally travels to Florida to exercise his visitation rights. He pays child support through the Broward County Support Enforcement Division under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act (URESA). She filed a petition to domesticate a judgment from a foreign country and to increase the amount of child support. The trial court found that the husband was served by “long arm service, ... used in proceedings for child support.”
Both parties agree that the act of making child support payments under URESA does not confer personal jurisdiction in an action to modify support. § 88.291, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Section 48.193(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1987) specifies the acts which do subject a person to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in child support matters as follows:
With respect to a proceeding to an independent action for support of dependents, maintaining a matrimonial domicile in this state at the time of the commencement of this action or, if the defendant resided in this state preceding the commencement of the action, whether cohabiting during that time or not.
The trial judge erroneously determined jurisdiction over the husband by applying the most convenient forum standard. Although the husband had minimum contact with Florida, the statutory criteria was not met as he neither maintained a matrimonial domicile nor resided in this state before or at the time the wife commenced this action. His occasional visits to Florida did not constitute the establishment of a residency in this state. Even if the wife domesticates the foreign judgment, she will still have to seek modification of the child support in a state where personal jurisdiction can be obtained over the husband. See Overcash v. Overcash, 466 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.