GARY STUART DENNIS ISRAEL, APPELLANT,
v.
BETH A. ISRAEL, 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.
This case addresses the proper procedure for resolving venue disputes in post-dissolution modification proceedings. The court reversed an injunction issued by a Broward County circuit court that prevented the former husband from litigating a modification petition in Miami-Dade County, holding that the court where the modification petition is filed must determine venue propriety.
The court held that the determination of whether venue is proper should be made by the circuit court where the modification petition has been filed, not by a court in another county. The proper procedure is to file a motion to transfer venue in the court where the petition is pending, not to seek an injunction in another county to prevent litigation.
[1] A court where proceedings are pending has the responsibility to rule on the propriety of venue.
[2] The proper procedure for resolving a venue dispute in a post-dissolution modification proceeding is to file a motion to transfer in the court where the petition has been…
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“It is the "responsibility of the court where the proceedings are pending" to rule on the propriety of venue.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the court where a modification petition is filed must determine venue propriety, not courts in other counties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a divorce judgment was entered in Broward County on February 8, 2001, the former husband filed a modification petition in Miami-Dade County on F…
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 Motion To Transfer Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
After extensive litigation, the parties to this appeal were divorced by a final judgment entered in Broward County on February 8, 2001.
On February 8, 2003, the former husband filed a petition for modification in Miami-Dade County. While claiming that he lived out-of-státe, the former husband alleged that the former wife and the parties’ minor children were residing in Miami-Dade County.
Pertinent to this appeal, the former wife filed a motion in Broward County to enjoin the former husband from litigating the modification in Miami-Dade County. As grounds, the former wife asserted that she and the children resided in Broward County-
The circuit court in Broward County granted the former wife’s motion. The Miami-Dade County circuit court then dismissed the former husband’s modification motion, which he did not appeal.
We reverse the injunction entered against the former husband. It is the “responsibility of the court where the proceedings are pending” to rule on the propriety of venue. Foti v. Camejo, 812 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Case law demonstrates that the proper procedure for dealing with a venue dispute in a post-dissolution modification proceeding is to file a motion to transfer in the court where the petition has been filed. See Mingione v. Mingione, 756 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (after husband filed motion for modification of alimony in Broward County, wife, who alleged venue was proper in Pinellas County, filed motion to transfer in Broward County, and not in Pinellas County); Thornburg v. Donovan, 866 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (after husband filed motion to modify custody in Seminole County, wife properly filed motion to transfer venue in that county); Pitt v. Benzenhafer, 843 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (after husband filed motion to change custody in Lee County, wife correctly filed motion to transfer venue in Lee County, rather than filing motion in Polk County, seeking to prevent Lee County circuit court from hearing the motion); Lottinger-Serraes v. Serraes, 774 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (after husband filed modification motion in Palm Beach County, wife moved in that county to dismiss motion and transfer ease to Alachua County, rather than file motion in Alachua County seeking to prevent Palm Beach County circuit court from hearing husband’s motion).
Our holding is that the determination of whether venue was proper in Miami-Dade County should have been made by the circuit court in that county, not by the circuit court in Broward County.
REVERSED.
KLEIN, J., concurs.
WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
WARNER, J.,
concurring specially.
While I concur in the substance of the opinion, the matter is moot because the Miami-Dade action has been dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Therese E. Lottinger-Serraes v. Serraes, 774 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Foti v. Nikolas Camejo, 812 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Pitt v. Benzenhafer, 843 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Mingione v. Mingione, 756 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Thornburg v. Donovan, 866 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)