MARY JANE JEFFRIES, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD T. JEFFRIES, 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.
A wife appealed a final divorce decree, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction based on alleged lack of the husband's Florida residency. The appellate court affirmed the divorce decree, finding that the husband satisfied Florida's statutory residence requirements for divorce.
The court held that the husband satisfied Florida's statutory residence requirements for divorce jurisdiction. The husband's long-standing Florida birth and domicile, combined with statutory provisions deeming military service members living within Florida as prima facie residents, established sufficient jurisdiction.
“the appellee husband was born in Miami, Florida, and except for the time that he was in the service of the United States Navy, he had never resided outside of the State of Florida”
Establishes the factual basis for the husband's Florida domicile and residence satisfying jurisdictional requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee husband was born in Miami, Florida and had never resided outside Florida except during his service in the United States Navy. The husband…
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 For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
On appeal from a final decree of divorce, the appellant wife raises only one point, i. e., the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. It is the appellant’s contention that the appellee husband has failed to establish the required residence in the State of Florida before institution of his suit for divorce. We conclude this contention is without merit.
The record reflects that the appellee husband was born in Miami, Florida, and except for the time that he was in the service of the United States Navy, he had never resided outside of the State of Florida. Appellant relies strongly upon the case of Campbell v. Campbell, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 34, for reversal of the decree in this case. The appellant’s reliance on this case would appear to be misplaced. The facts in the Campbell case are vastly different from those in the case at bar.
The appellant husband in the Campbell case was a career naval officer who was born in the State of Oregon where he remained until he entered the United States Naval Academy. After his graduation from the Naval Academy, he had been continuously on active duty in various parts of the United States and foreign countries and at the time of the filing of the bill of complaint for divorce, was stationed and living in Germany. It did not appear that he had ever established or attempted to establish a domicile in any other state than his domicile of origin (Oregon) until December, Í950, at which time he made a short trip to Jacksonville, Florida, to visit a friend, filed an affidavit of intention to make Florida his permanent residence, opened a bank *752account in a Jacksonville bank and returned to his post in Germany. The exact length of the appellant’s sojourn in Florida in the Campbell case was not definitely established, but the court pointed out that it was only for a few days. Obviously, in the Campbell case the appellant there had failed 4o comply with the statutory requirements of § 65.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
We have examined other authorities on the question and are of the view that in addition to the fact that the record sufficiently establishes the statutory residence requirement, the appellee husband would also have the benefit of § 46.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which in substance provides that any person in any branch of the military service, if living within the borders of the state, shall be deemed prima facie to be a resident of the state for the purpose of maintaining any suit in chancery or at law.
■ Finding no error in the decree appealed, it follows that the same should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruickshank v. Cruickshank, 420 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…was physically present in Florida from 1966 to 1971. Coupled with the facts set forth above showing intent to be a permanent resident, the trial court properly held that the husband met the statutory residency requirements. See Jeffries v. Jeffries, 133 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), and Sheppard v. Sheppard, 286 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). The application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens rests within the sound discretion of the court, tempered by the time-honored concept of “the interest of justic…
-
Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…519 So. 2d 546 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987); Mark L. v. Jennifer S., 133 Misc.2d 454, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1023 (Fam.Ct.1986); see Mast v. Reed, 578 So. 2d 304, 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Eckel v. Eckel, 522 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Jeffries v. Jeffries, 133 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). See also Taylor v. United Servs. Automobile Ass’n, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D28, D29, — So. 2d —, — [1995 WL 755138] (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 22, 1995). Here, the former wife, a Florida resident absent from the state on military assignment, c…
-
Gordon v. Gordon, 369 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…n they reside together; citing Frank v. Frank, 75 So. 2d 282 (Fla.1954); and Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483 (1933). The wife relies upon the holdings in Sheppard v. Sheppard, 286 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); and Jeffries v. Jeffries, 133 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), for her position that she did not lose her Florida residence when she followed her husband out of the state. She admits that each of these cases concerns servicemen and not their wives, but she urges that the same rule should be…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. Campbell, 57 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1952)