CONRAD S. MIKULEC, PETITIONER,
v.
PATRICIA HIGGINS MIKULEC, RESPONDENT
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.
Conrad Mikulec challenged the circuit court's jurisdiction over his wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, arguing he did not meet Florida's six-month residency requirement. The appellate court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in part, quashing the trial court's order and remanding because the record did not demonstrate the residency requirement was satisfied.
The court held that the circuit court lacked the requisite factual basis to determine jurisdiction and granted the writ of certiorari in part, quashing the order denying the motion to dismiss and remanding for the trial court to make specific findings regarding the residency requirement. If no additional evidence is presented demonstrating the husband meets the residency requirements, the motion to dismiss must be granted.
[1] Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court by a constitution or statute and cannot be created by waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties.
[2] A party challenging subject matter jurisdiction based on lack of residency cannot be estopped from raising the issue.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court by a constitution or statute, and cannot be created by waiver, acquiescence or agreement of the parties.”
Establishes the foundational principle that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties and must exist independent of their conduct or consent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConrad Mikulec's wife, Patricia Higgins Mikulec, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Florida. Conrad moved to dismiss the petition on the …
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 Residency Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Conrad Mikulec seeks review, by petition for writ of prohibition or in the alternative writ of certiorari, of an order denying his motion to dismiss his wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage. The husband alleges the circuit court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because he does not meet the residency requirement of the Florida Statutes. We grant in part the alternative petition for writ of certiorari, as discussed below, and remand for further proceedings.
“Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court by a constitution or statute, and cannot be created by waiver, acquiescence or agreement of the parties.” Snider v. Snider, 686 So.2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see also Walker v. Garrison, 610 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (estoppel cannot defeat a challenge to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; “[njeither conduct nor consent of the parties may confer on a court subject matter jurisdiction which it does not otherwise have”). To establish subject matter jurisdiction in a divorce proceeding, section 61.021, Florida Statutes, provides that “one of the parties to the marriage must reside 6 months in the state before the filing of the petition.” See Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So.2d 712, 713 (Fla.1995) (recognizing “Florida’s residency requirement is jurisdictional and must be alleged and proved in every case .... corroborating testimony cannot be waived by an admission that the residency requirement has been met”); Cleveland v. Cleveland, 692 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
In denying the husband’s motion to dismiss, the trial court did not make any findings regarding where the husband resided before the wife petitioned for divorce in Florida, and the record before this court does not demonstrate that the residency requirement is satisfied.
Accordingly, we grant in part the husband’s alternative petition for writ of cer-tiorari, quash the trial court’s order, and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court may consider additional evidence regarding this issue. In the absence of any additional evidence, and a specific finding by the court that the husband meets the residency requirements, the motion to dismiss should be granted. The wife elected to file for divorce in Florida, rather than her own place of residency. As the party petitioning for divorce, she has the burden of proving that the residency requirement is satisfied. Coons v. Coons, 765 So.2d 167, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Petition for writ of certiorari granted in part.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1995)
- Snider v. Cornelia N. Snider, 686 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Walker v. Garrison, 610 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Coons v. Cathlyn Ann Coons, 765 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Cleveland v. Cleveland, 692 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)