RUFUS S. WATSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
TERESA S. WATSON, 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.
Rufus Watson appealed a divorce judgment awarding half his federal pension to his ex-wife, Teresa Watson. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Watson because the petition failed to allege either a marital domicile in Florida or Watson's prior residence in the state at the time the dissolution action was commenced.
No. The trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because the petition failed to allege one of the jurisdictional requirements under Florida Statutes Section 48.193(1)(e). The failure to allege either a marital domicile in the state at the time of commencement or prior residence of the defendant renders service under Florida's long-arm statute void.
[1] A trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a dissolution of marriage action if the petition fails to allege either a marital domicile in Florida at the…
[2] Failure to allege a jurisdictional basis under Florida's long-arm statute in a petition for dissolution of marriage renders attempted service by publication void.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Section 48.193(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) provides that a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in an action for alimony or division of property in connection with a dissolution of marriage if a marital domicile was maintained in the state at the time the action was commenced or the defendant had resided in this state prior to the filing of the action.”
Establishes the statutory jurisdictional requirements for dissolution of marriage actions in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by Teresa Watson in Collier County, Florida on February 4, 1992. The parties were married in Maryland…
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
QUINCE, Judge.
Rufus S. Watson, Jr. appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate and set aside a final judgment awarding Teresa Watson one-half of his federal pension in a divorce proceeding. We reverse because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellant.
A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in Collier County, Florida, by the wife on February 4, 1992. After an unsuccessful attempt to serve the husband at the wife’s address, the wife attempted service by publication. The notice of suit was published on four successive dates in the Naples Daily News. A motion for default was filed and entered on April 29, 1992. On July 16, 1992, a final judgment was rendered. The appellant entered a special appearance on October 5, 1992, and moved to vacate and set aside the final judgment. The motion was denied on February 2, 1994, and this timely appeal followed.
The wife alleged in the petition that the parties were married in the State of Maryland. She further alleged her residence in the State of Florida. However, the petition does not contain either any allegation of a marital domicile in Florida at the time of the commencement of the action or an allegation that the husband resided in this state prior to the commencement of the action. Section 48.193(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) provides that a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state in an action for alimony or division of property in connection with a dissolution of marriage if a marital domicile was maintained in the state at the time the action was commenced or the defendant had resided in this state prior to the filing of the action. The failure to allege one of these jurisdictional requirements renders attempted service under Florida’s long-arm statute void. Caputo v. Eggleston, 637 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), McCabe v. McCabe, 600 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
The trial court erred in finding it had personal jurisdiction over the husband for purposes of alimony and/or division of property. We reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to dismiss the petition with leave to amend with the proper jurisdictional facts.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maja Stock v. Stock, 677 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…jurisdiction in conformity with the policies of the UCCJA, properly considered the best interests of the children, and provided the father with notice and an opportunity to be heard. See § -61.1348; Dixson; Izmery; cf. Whelpley v. De Athayde Costa, 648 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(where notice provided only after entry of Brazilian court order, Brazilian decree not entitled to recognition). [*1349] We likewise cannot determine as a matter of law based on the record provided whether the father voluntarily p…
Authorities Cited
- McCABE v. McCABE, 600 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Caputo v. Eggleston, 637 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)