STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ON BEHALF OF LOUISE A SCHNEIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES EDWARD SCHNEIDER, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1996-02-16
No. 94-02625
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
667 So. 2d 1029 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1996)

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

The Florida Department of Revenue, on behalf of Louise Schneider, appealed a trial court order in a URESA child support action, challenging the court's jurisdiction to consider the father's counter-petition for child support for their son and the retroactive application of support obligations. The court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the counter-petition under Florida statute Section 88.291.


Holding

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the father's counter-petition under section 88.291, Florida Statutes. Although the counter-petition was outside the court's jurisdiction, the trial court could consider the father's affirmative defenses and could decide whether they negate the mother's claim.


Headnotes

[1] A URESA action does not confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.

[2] In a URESA action initiated by one parent, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a counter-petition by the other parent seeking to modify a foreign judgment.

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

Key Quotes

“Participation in any proceeding under this act does not confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.”

The statutory provision establishing that URESA proceedings do not grant jurisdiction for collateral matters like counter-petitions

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Schneiders were divorced in New Jersey in 1988 with the mother awarded primary residential custody of both children and the father ordered to pay …

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
BLUE, Judge.

BLUE, Judge.

The Department of Revenue, on behalf of Louise Schneider (the mother), appeals the trial court’s order in an action brought by the mother under URESA, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, chapter 88, Florida Statutes (1993). The Department argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the counter-petition by James Schneider (the father) and that it erred in awarding support to the father for the time prior to the mother’s filing of the petition.

We agree that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and reverse. Because we are reversing on the first issue, we find it unnecessary to discuss the Department’s second issue. The Schneiders, parents of two children, were divorced in New Jersey in 1988. The father subsequently moved to Florida where he currently resides while the mother remained in New Jersey. The mother was awarded primary residential custody of both the son and the daughter and the father was ordered to pay child support.

In November 1993, the mother filed a URESA petition seeking support for the daughter and payment of child support arrearages. The father filed an answer, raising the affirmative defenses of set-off and estoppel based on his allegation that the son had been living with him since December 1992. The father also filed a counter-petition, seeking child support and arrearages for the son.

The record does not contain any orders from New Jersey modifying the original custody order. After a hearing, the trial court found that it had jurisdiction over the petition and counter-petition. The court then found that the father would owe child support for the daughter in the amount of $262.45 per month and the mother would owe child support for the son in the amount of $284.44 per month. The mother was ordered to pay $21.88 per month as the net difference.

The trial court further found that the mother’s support obligation was retroactive to February 1993, which eliminated the arrearage owed to her and created an arrearage of $262.56 owed to the father. The mother was ordered to make her payments through the Central Governmental Depository for Pasco County.

Section 88.291, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that “[pjarticipation ⅛ any proceeding under this act does not confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.” The Department argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the father’s counter-petition under this section. We agree. See Gibson v. Gibson, 536 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the father’s counter-petition to modify the foreign judgment in a URESA action initiated by the mother). Although the counter-petition was outside its jurisdiction, the trial court may consider the father’s affirmative defenses and may decide that the mother’s claim is negated by these defenses. See Gibson.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw