ANNELISE NISSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICARDO RENE CORTEZ MORENO, 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.
Annelise Nissen appealed the trial court's dismissal of her paternity petition against Ricardo Rene Cortez Moreno for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction because Cortez Moreno was a Florida resident and the action sought to establish paternity and child support.
The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction because Cortez Moreno is a resident of Florida and the action is a paternity proceeding brought to establish child support and other monetary relief. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act did not apply because custody was not at issue.
[1] A trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a paternity action when one of the parties resides in the state and the action seeks to establish child support and oth…
[2] The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act applies only when child custody is at issue and does not divest a court of jurisdiction in a paternity action s…
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“Based on the testimony and evidence presented, we conclude that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Cortez Moreno is a resident of this State, and this is a paternity action brought to establish child support and other monetary relief.”
Establishes the jurisdictional basis for the court's authority: defendant's Florida residency and the nature of the paternity action for support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnnelise Nissen, residing in Guatemala with a minor child also born in Guatemala, filed a petition to establish that Ricardo Rene Cortez Moreno was th…
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 Petition To Determine Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
Annelise Nissen appeals the trial court’s final order that dismissed her petition to determine paternity and for related relief in which she sought, among other things, to establish that appellee Ricardo Rene Cortez Moreno was the father of the minor child. We reverse because the trial court incorrectly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Cortez Moreno resides in the State of Florida and is a permanent resident of the United States. Both Nissen and the minor child reside in Guatemala, the child’s place of birth. Cortez Moreno moved to dismiss Nissen’s petition, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine any custody issues. He simultaneously filed proceedings in Guatemala to determine the paternity of the minor child. He later amended his motion to dismiss, arguing that Simeon Sosa Flores’ claim of paternity of the minor child in Guatemala constituted an additional ground for dismissal. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Cortez Moreno testified that he lives and works in Guatemala for half of his time, and he lives in Florida the remainder of the time. Cortez Moreno admitted that he had a relationship with Nissen.
We first note that the issue of whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction involves a question of law that is reviewed de novo. See Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So.2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Based on the testimony and evidence presented, we conclude that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Cortez Moreno is a resident of this State, and this is a paternity action *1112brought to establish child support and other monetary relief. See de Moya v. de Pena, 148 So.2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
Cortez Moreno’s argument that the trial court properly dismissed the petition because the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act applied and divested the court of jurisdiction, is entirely meritless. The argument is nothing but a red herring. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act applies only when custody is at issue. See Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So.2d 192, 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Patterson v. Tomlinson, 875 So.2d 646, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Custody is not an issue in this case.
We therefore conclude that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Callahan, 155 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
-
Solar Dynamics, Inc. v. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., 211 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
-
Golden Cape of Fla., Inc. v. de Ospina, 324 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- de Moya v. Athenia Leonard de Pena, 148 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Patterson v. Leathy Tomlinson, 875 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)