CHARLES H. NORRIS, PETITIONER,
v.
DIANA S. NORRIS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida appellate court granted Charles Norris's petition for certiorari, quashing the trial court's denial of a motion to stay Florida dissolution proceedings in favor of parallel Pennsylvania litigation. Applying the principle of priority established in Bedingfield and refined in Siegel, the court held that a stay should ordinarily be granted when parallel cases involving the same parties and issues are pending in two states, absent circumstances such as undue delay.
The court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order denying the stay, directing the trial court to stay the Florida proceedings except as to child custody and visitation matters pending resolution of the Pennsylvania action. The principle of priority ordinarily requires a stay when parallel proceedings involving the same parties and issues are pending in another state, absent circumstances such as undue delay or other factors supported by case law.
[1] A court may stay a proceeding before it on the grounds that a prior filed case involving the same parties and issues is pending in the courts of another state as a matter…
[2] A trial court is not always required to stay proceedings when a prior action involving the same parties and issues is pending in another state, but ordinarily this should…
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“a court may stay a proceeding before it on the grounds that a prior filed case involving the same parties and issues is pending in the courts of another state”
Establishes the basic principle of priority from Bedingfield that ordinarily supports stays when parallel litigation exists in another jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Norris and Diana Norris had dissolution proceedings pending in both Florida and Pennsylvania courts. Both courts had determined they possessed…
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 Principle Of Priority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari an order of the trial court denying a motion to stay dissolution proceedings filed in Florida because of a prior pending proceeding in Pennsylvania. Both the Pennsylvania court and the Florida court had determined that their courts, respectively, had subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction over each party. In Siegel v. Siegel, 575 So. 2d 1267 (Fla.1991) the Florida Supreme Court approved this court's reasoning in Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) which as a matter of comity applied the “principle of priority” to cases pending in two sovereign jurisdictions. The Bedingfield court announced the rule that a court may stay a proceeding before it on the grounds that a prior filed case involving the same parties and issues is pending in the courts of another state. The supreme court in Siegel qualified this rule by stating:
This does not mean that a trial court must always stay proceedings when the prior proceedings involving the same issues and parties are pending before a court in another state but only that ordinarily this should be the result. ‘There may well be circumstances under which the denial of a stay could be justified upon a showing of the prospects for undue delay in the disposition of a prior action.’ Schwartz v. DeLoach, 453 So. 2d 454, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). There may be additional factors or circumstances which would also warrant a denial of stay by the trial court.
575 So. 2d at 1272 (emphasis in original opinion). The supreme court’s decision quashed the trial court s order denying a motion to stay the Florida dissolution proceedings in Siegel.
We find Siegel and Bedingfield to be controlling in this case and that the principle of priority applies. While Siegel suggests some situations such as delay in proceedings which may prevent application of the rule, the respondent has not shown that undue delay of proceedings would occur in Pennsylvania nor any other circumstance' which case law supports as a ground for denying the stay. In fact, respondent’s primary argument against a stay of Florida proceedings is that Florida law regarding equitable distribution is more favorable than Pennsylvania law. However, her petition requests enforcement of an antenup-tial agreement which by its terms is to be construed under Pennsylvania law.
Based on the foregoing, we grant the petition, quash the order denying the stay except as to child custody and visitation on which issues the petitioner is not challenging the Florida court’s right to proceed at this time, and we direct that the trial court stay the Florida proceedings except as to child custody and visitation pending resolution of the Pennsylvania action.
GUNTHER, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Guardianship OF Joseph Scott Morrison v. Morrison, 972 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ial circumstances that would justify a denial of the stay. Siegel, 575 So. 2d at 1272. Thus, absent any such special circumstances, a trial court abuses its discretion in refusing to grant a stay based on the principle of priority. Norris v. Norris, 573 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The most common example of such special.circumstances is undue delay by the court with priority. See Siegel, 575 So. 2d at 1272; Parker v. Estate of Bealer, 890 So. 2d 508, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Norris, 573 So. 2d at 10…
-
Devindar Maraj v. Maraj, 642 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…defer, as a matter of comity, to a divorce suit previously filed by the husband in Trinidad and Tobago. Generally, Florida courts will acknowledge priority in favor of foreign courts first exercising concurrent jurisdiction. E.g. Norris v. Norris, 573 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Reuther v. Reuther, 524 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1988); Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada, 462 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), r…
-
Merrill Lynch v. Ainsworth, 630 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…y be applied as a matter of comity. Siegel v. Siegel, 575 So. 2d 1267 (Fla.1991) (approving the reasoning of Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), petition for review dismissed, 427 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1983)); Norris v. Norris, 573 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The principle, which technically applies only to matters among courts within the same sovereignty, provides that the court first exercising jurisdiction acquires exclusive jurisdiction to proceed. Siegel, 575 So. 2d at 1272, quo…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Siegel v. Siegel, 575 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1991)
- Schwartz v. DeLOACH, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)