KIRKLAND
v.
KIRKLAND
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 Florida circuit court dismissed a petition for dissolution of marriage due to insufficient process and lack of jurisdiction over the respondent. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with Florida's strict procedural requirements for service of process in dissolution cases, including personal service by an authorized officer or proper sworn statements for service by publication.
The court dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage for insufficiency of process and lack of jurisdiction over the person. The court held that Section 48.193(1)(e) does not authorize service under Florida's long-arm statute in dissolution cases, and that service by publication requires compliance with Section 49.031, F.S., which was not satisfied here.
[1] Service of process in a dissolution of marriage action requires personal service by an authorized officer or the filing of sworn statements for service by publication.
[2] Florida's "long arm" statute, Section 48.193(1)(e), F.S., does not authorize service of process in dissolution of marriage cases, although it may apply to related proceed…
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“the respondent has been neither personally served with service of process by an officer authorized by law to serve process in this type of action (see Section 48.021, F. S.), nor has there been filed the necessary sworn statements required by Section 49.031, F.S., for the legal service of process by publication under Section 49.10, F. S.”
Establishes the dual defects in service of process—no personal service and no proper sworn statements for service by publication
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was an action for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The respondent was neither personally served with proce…
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
Order of dismissal for insufficiency of process and lack of jurisdiction over the person: This cause coming on this day to be heard and the court having examined the court case filed finds that this *32is an action for dissolution of marriage and that the respondent has been neither personally served with service of process by an officer authorized by law to serve process in this type of action (see Section 48.021, F. S.), nor has there been filed the necessary sworn statements required by Section 49.031, F.S., for the legal service of process by publication under Section 49.10, F. S., as permitted in actions for the dissolution of marriage by Section 49.011 (4), F. S.
The petitioner has apparently attempted to effect service of process in this action for dissolution of marriage under Section 48.193(1) (e), F. S. It is the opinion of this court that this section does not authorize process under Florida’s “long arm” statute in dissolution cases although it does relate “to proceedings for alimony, child support or division of property in connection with an action to dissolve a marriage or with respect to an independent action for support of dependents . . .”
Although under this opinion it is immaterial, the court notes that the petition is insufficient as the basis for process under Section 48.193, F. S., in that it not only does not seek alimony, child support or division of property but the petition does not allege, as is necessary, facts showing that the respondent “maintains a matrimonial domicile in this state at the time of the commencement of this action or, [that] the defendant resided in this state preceding the commencement of the action, whether cohabiting during that time or not.”
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for dissolution of marriage is dismissed.