THOMAS POLKOWSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURIE POLKOWSKI, 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.
A court lacks in rem jurisdiction over real property located outside its state boundaries, and thus cannot order its sale in a dissolution proceeding.
During a dissolution proceeding, the husband challenged the trial court's authority to order the partition and sale of marital real property located i…
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 Dissolution Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The effect of state boundaries on a court’s jurisdiction over property to be distributed in a dissolution proceeding frames the issue in this appeal. The husband challenges the final judgment dissolving his marriage and distributing the marital property. He raises two issues on appeal. First, the husband argues that the trial court lacked the authority to order the partition of the marital residence located in Plantation, Florida. Second, he argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the sale of real property located in North Carolina. We reverse that portion of the final judgment ordering the sale of the North Carolina property and affirm in all other respects.
The final judgment provides, “The real property located in Murphy, North Carolina shall be sold and the net proceeds of the sale shall be equally divided by the parties.” Like lines in the sand, state boundaries determine a court’s jurisdiction over real property. In this case, the trial court lacked in rem jurisdiction over the North Carolina property. It erred in that portion of the final judgment ordering the partition and sale of the North Carolina property. See Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see also Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Farley v. Farley, 790 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
We therefore reverse the judgment in part and remand the case to the trial court. Upon remand, the court may reconsider the distribution of all marital assets in light of this opinion. See Pawlik, 545 So. 2d at 507.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STEVENSON, MAY, JJ., and CHAVIES, MICHAEL B., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeMELLO v. Buckman, 916 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…diction to order a lis pendens or the sale of the Connecticut property. We agree with DeMello that the court did not have the authority to order the sale of the property or impose a lis pendens on the Connecticut property. See Polkowski v. Polkowski 854 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Farley v. Farley, 790 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Because we are reversing on this ground, we also note that the order with respect to the disposition of the property is itself contrary to the trust provisions. First, t…
-
Brown v. Brown, 169 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ellant primarily argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to direct the per [*287] sonal representative to distribute the decedent’s Georgia real estate. We agree and reverse that portion of the order on appeal. See Polkowski v. Polkowski, 854 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Like lines in the sand, state boundaries determine a court’s jurisdiction over real property,” and thus the court lacked in rem jurisdiction to order the partition and sale of foreign property); Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Farley v. Farley, 790 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Vallejo v. State, 545 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Dieter K. Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)