MARK THOMAS BRULTE, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
SUZANNE MITCHELL BRULTE, WIFE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2007-11-13
No. 1D07-3692
KAHN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
967 So. 2d 1087 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2007) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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

Mark Brulte appealed a trial court order denying his motion to dismiss a dissolution of marriage petition on jurisdictional grounds. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the order did not fall within the immediately appealable categories under Florida appellate rules.


Holding

The order denying the motion to dismiss is not an immediately appealable order because it does not challenge the trial court's in personam jurisdiction over the parties and does not make a determination as to child custody, thus falling outside the categories of appealable orders.


Headnotes

[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss that challenges subject matter jurisdiction is not an immediately appealable order unless it falls within a specific category enumera…

[2] An order determining residency requirements for filing a dissolution of marriage petition and jurisdiction over children pursuant to the UCCJEA is not an appealable order…

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

“Concluding that the order on appeal does not fall into any of the categories of appealable orders identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, the appellee's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.”

States the court's holding and dispositive ruling

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The trial court found that the wife met residency requirements for filing a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Florida and that the court had jur…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed this appeal seeking review of a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss filed below, which had challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case. The appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because the order on appeal dealt with subject matter jurisdiction and is not an immediately appealable order. Concluding that the order on appeal does not fall into any of the categories of appealable orders identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, the appellee’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

In the order on appeal, the trial court found that the wife met the residency requirements for filing a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Florida, and also that the court had jurisdiction over the parties’ two children pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), sections 61.501 through 61.542, Florida Statutes. The UCCJEA does not require personal jurisdiction over a party to make a child custody determination. See § 61.514(3), Fla. Stat. (2006).

Because the appellant’s motion to dismiss did not raise a challenge to the trial court’s in personam jurisdiction, the order on appeal did not determine the jurisdiction of the person as that term is used in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

See Fisher v. International Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 827 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Further, although this order set the stage for a custody determination in the future, it is not appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), because it did not make a determination as to child custody.

KAHN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Frier v. Frier, 13 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
    …61.542, Florida Statutes (2008), a trial court has jurisdiction, under certain specified conditions, to make a child custody determination without also having personal jurisdiction over a party. See § 61.514(3), Fla. Stat. (2008); Brulte v. Brulte, 967 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Therefore, the trial court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over some of the issues in the action did not necessarily determine personal jurisdiction over the appellant. Consequently, this court does not possess appellat…
  • Pierrelouis v. Pierrelouis, 272 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw