CONCETTA RUSSO, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH ROMANO, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1991-12-24
Nos. 91-1865, 91-2122
Per Curiam
591 So. 2d 1018 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court affirmed denial of venue transfer to Broward County in child custody action but reversed temporary injunction prohibiting mother's visitation for failure to state reasons as required by civil procedure rules.


Holding

A trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mother's motion to transfer venue from Monroe County to Broward County in a child custody action where the children were enrolled in Monroe County schools and Broward County had never taken jurisdiction.


Headnotes

[1] In a child custody action between unmarried parties, venue is proper in the county where the children are enrolled in school and reside, even if the parties previously li…

[2] A temporary injunction order is defective and must be reversed if it fails to comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure rule 1.610(c) requiring specification of reason…

Previewing 2 of 2 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

Facts & Procedural History

The mother and father, unmarried parties, had moved to Monroe County with the mother's consent, and their children were enrolled in Monroe County scho…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In this action for child custody, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the mother’s motion to transfer venue to Broward County. With the mother’s consent, the parties had moved, at least temporarily, to Monroe County. It is undisputed that at the time the action was filed, the children were enrolled in Monroe County schools. Although the parties had previously resided in Broward County, the Broward court had never taken jurisdiction over the matter because the parties were unmarried and no custody or dissolution proceedings had been filed in Broward County. Venue, therefore, was not improper in Monroe County. Torres v. Torres, 561 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

The order granting a temporary injunction prohibiting the mother from visiting her children is defective, however, for failure to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. There has been no compliance with rule 1.610(c), which requires that every injunction shall specify the reason for entry. On remand, the court shall take evidence and state reasons if injunctive relief is deemed warranted. City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

The order denying the motion to transfer venue is affirmed; the order granting a temporary injunction is reversed and the cause is remanded for further consistent proceedings.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • City OF Homestead v. Ramirez, 621 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
    …05-23 for a period of forty-five (45) days from the day of this order.” We hold that the injunction is defective because the order fails to specify the reasons for its entry as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). Russo v. Romano, 591 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The order granting the injunction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.…
  • Green v. Studen, 622 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
    …required under Rule 1.610(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and then in denying dissolution thereof without conducting any evidentiary hearing. Upon remand, any orders entered should be in compliance with Rule 1.610(c). See Russo v. Romano, 591 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Allegra Enterprises, Inc. v. Fairchild, 455 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw