JAMES FARRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEMARIE FARRELL, 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.
James Farrell appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a dissolution of marriage action. The court affirmed, holding that Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over him under the long-arm statute because the parties maintained their matrimonial domicile in Florida, where Rosemarie continuously resided and the couple's only marital home was located.
Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over James because the parties maintained their matrimonial domicile in Florida. The matrimonial domicile is the place where the parties lived together as husband and wife either actually or constructively, which in this case is Florida—the only state where the couple established such a marital residence.
[1] A "matrimonial domicile" for the purpose of establishing long-arm jurisdiction in a dissolution action exists where the parties live together as husband and wife, either…
[2] A spouse's occasional visits to a jointly-owned marital residence in Florida, coupled with using that address as a mailing address of record, can establish a "matrimonial…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the matrimonial domicile is in Florida, the place where the "parties live together as husband and wife either actually or constructively."”
Court's definition of matrimonial domicile, the key concept for establishing jurisdiction under the statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames and Rosemarie married in Maryland in 1979. James, employed by the U.S. Navy and NASA, has lived in Maryland and Virginia but not Florida since 1…
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
SHEVIN, Judge.
James Farrell [James] appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
The parties were married in Maryland in 1979; James resided in Maryland. Since 1979, James, employed by the U.S. Navy and NASA has moved from Maryland to Virginia, and back to Maryland. James has not lived in Florida since 1979. Rosemarie Farrell [Rosemarie] has resided in Miami, Florida, continuously since 1979. In 1987, the couple purchased a condominium in Miami titled as tenants by the entireties. James comes to Miami for only two weeks each year during the Christmas holiday season; during these visits, he stays at the jointly-owned condominium with Rosemarie. James uses the condominium address as his official mailing address of record with his employer and for Internal Revenue Service purposes because he is continually moving.
Rosemarie petitioned for dissolution in Dade County Circuit Court, asserting long-arm jurisdiction over James under section 48.193(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), alleging that the parties maintained their matrimonial domicile in Florida. James filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and adopted the general master’s finding that the matrimonial domicile is in Florida, the place where the “parties live together as husband and wife either actually or constructively.” James appeals. Section 48.193(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), confers on the trial court in personam jurisdiction in a dissolution action for alimony, child support, or property division purposes, over a defendant who is “maintaining a matrimonial domicile in this state at the time of the commencement of this ac-tion_” (Emphasis added). Rosemarie argues, and we agree, that the only place where the parties had established a matrimonial domicile is in Florida, as this is the only state where the “parties lived together as husband and wife either actually or constructively.” Black’s Law Dictionary 978 (6th ed.1990) (defining “matrimonial domicile”). Here, as in Burkhart v. Burkhart, 144 Fla. 168, 197 So. 730 (1940), the parties spent their married life, however unique it was, in Florida. This is where the matrimonial domicile was established.
We decline to follow Latta v. Latta, 654 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Latta held that the litigants had not established a matrimonial domicile sufficient to support the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(l)(e). However, the Latta court misplaced its reliance on personal jurisdiction principles in interpreting “matrimonial domicile” as used in the statute.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, we affirm the order denying the motion to dismiss, and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gold v. Gold, 802 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Farrell v. Farrell, 710 So. 2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (affirming order denying motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and holding that matrimonial domicile was established in Florida where “parties lived together as husband and wife either actually or constructively…
-
Weiler v. Alexandria G. Weiler, 861 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ring the period of time the wife claims Florida was their matrimonial domicile. Further, the Florida farm was just one of several corporate residences the parties used, and it was the wife’s place of business as well. As noted in Farrell v. Farrell, 710 So. 2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), matrimonial domicile is a place where the parties live together as husband and wife either actually or constructively. See also Forrest v. Forrest, 839 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), citing Farrell. At some point,9 Alexand…
-
Darrel Forrest v. Forrest, 839 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…that the facts alleged in the wife’s petition do not support the finding of either requirement. A “[mjatrimonial domicile” is the place where the parties “live together as husband and wife either actually or constructively.” See Farrell v. Farrell, 710 So. 2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 978 (6th ed.1990)). Here, the place where the parties lived together as husband and wife was Singapore; the wife’s allegation that the Florida home was the matrimonial domicile because the husba…
Authorities Cited
- Burkhart v. Leonora Forney Burkchart, 144 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1940)
- Latta v. Latta, 654 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)