ANNETTE M. GREY, APPELLANT,
v.
HECTOR GREY, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2008-12-12
No. 2D07-5270
FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
995 So. 2d 623 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 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.

Holding

The final judgment of dissolution must be reversed because neither party presented the requisite evidence of residency in Florida as required by statute.

Facts & Procedural History

Annette M. Grey appealed the final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Hector Grey. Both parties conceded that the final judgment must be rever…

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
WHATLEY, Judge.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Annette M. Grey appeals the final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Hector Grey. She alleges, and Hector concedes, that the final judgment must be reversed because neither party presented the requisite evidence of residency in Florida. We reverse.

Section 61.021, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[t]o obtain a dissolution of marriage, one of the parties to the marriage must reside 6 months in the state before the filing of the petition.” Section 61.052(2) requires that proof of compliance with this residency requirement be corroborated, and it sets forth what constitutes sufficient corroborating evidence. Here, the parties concede that although they both admitted to the other’s residency in Florida in their pleadings, those admissions are insufficient to establish compliance with the residency requirement. See Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla.1995) (“[CJorroborating testimony cannot be waived by an admission that the residency requirement has been met.”).

In light of the absence of evidence to establish compliance with the statutory residency requirement, the trial court erred in entering the final judgment of dissolution. Consequently, this court may not consider the remaining issues raised in this appeal but must reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Speigner v. Speigner, 621 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McNeil v. Jenkins-McNeil (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
    …ed testimony of one party, Lemon v. Lemon, 314 So. 2d 623, 623-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), nor can the requirement of corroborating evidence be waived by admission by the parties in the pleadings that the residency requirement has been met. Grey v. Grey, 995 So. 2d 623, 623-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 1995)). Residence can never be assumed, nor can it be established by agreement. Fazio v. Fazio, 66 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 1953) (citing Phillips v. Phillips, 1 So.…
  • McNeil v. Jenkins-McNeil, 252 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
    …testimony of one party, Lemon v. Lemon , 314 So. 2d 623, 623-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), nor can the requirement of corroborating evidence be waived by admission by the parties in the pleadings that the residency requirement has been met. Grey v. Grey , 995 So. 2d 623, 623-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Fernandez v. Fernandez , 648 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 1995) ). Residence can never be assumed, nor can it be established by agreement. Fazio v. Fazio , 66 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 1953) (citing Phillips v. Phillips , 146…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw