JENNIFER ELAINE TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN KARL SIEBERT, 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 trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify visitation rights because Florida was not the home state of the children or parents, nor did they have a significant connection to Florida.
The parties and their children had lived in Virginia for over six months when the father filed a motion to expand visitation rights. Most witnesses al…
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 Home State cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, Jennifer Taylor, appeals an order modifying the visitation rights of appellee, Steven Siebert. We reverse and remand.
The record discloses that on June 25, 1992, when appellee filed his motion to expand visitation rights, which the trial court granted on July 15, 1992 by the order now on appeal, both parties and their children had lived in Virginia for more than six months. Moreover, most of the witnesses at the hearing lived in Virginia. The parties did not show that Florida was the home state of the children or of either parent, or that the children or either parent had a significant connection with Florida, one of which was essential under the facts of this case to give the trial court jurisdiction to modify appellee’s visitation rights under Section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1991).1 See, e.g., Cook v. Wells, 493 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
An appellate court is under an obligation to consider jurisdictional defects in a case at any stage in the proceedings, even when not raised by the parties. Ford Motor Co. v. Averill, 355 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to the trial court to dismiss appel-lee’s motion to expand visitation rights.
SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Sections 61.1302 through 61.1348, Florida Statutes (1991), applies to challenges to visitation orders. See, e.g., Baggett v. Walsh, 510 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Barnett v. Barnett, 528 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 472 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilliam v. Smart, 809 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…en an appropriate objection to personal jurisdiction is made, it is the trial court’s duty to investigate jurisdictional questions and to determine from the record whether the court ever obtained jurisdiction over the parties. See Taylor v. Siebert, 615 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “The object to be accomplished by service of process is to advise the defendant that an action has been commenced against him and warn him that he must appear within a certain time and at a certain place to make such defense as…
-
Harley Amanquiton v. Jonny Peterson, 813 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…l court did not err in dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Jones Act. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Partridge v. Partridge, 790 So. 2d 1280, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Taylor v. Sieberb, 615 So. 2d 800, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Although state courts are authorized to entertain cases filed under the Jones Act, the United States Supreme Court has limited the subject matter jurisdiction2 of both federal and state courts to hear Jones Act claims to ca…
Authorities Cited
- Gilbert v. Gilbert, 472 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Baggett v. Walsh, 510 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Averill, 355 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 528 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Cook v. Wells, 493 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)