HENRY D. PRENSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
JUNE M. PRENSKY, 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 Florida appellate court affirmed a judgment against a divorced father for child support arrearages and attorney's fees. The court held that Florida courts have jurisdiction to enforce child support decrees even after the parties have relocated to different states, provided reasonable notice is given.
A Florida court retains jurisdiction to enforce its own child support decree even after the parties have relocated to different states. The enforcement proceeding is a continuation of the original divorce action, and reasonable notice by mail providing an opportunity to defend is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the parties.
“such a proceeding is a continuation of the original one, and reasonable notice which affords an opportunity to defend is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the parties for the enforcement of the decree”
Establishes the legal principle that child support enforcement is a continuation of the original divorce action, not a new suit requiring traditional personal jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry and June Prensky were divorced in 1952 by a Florida court, which ordered weekly child support payments for their two minor children. After the d…
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 For Rule To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-husband and the appellee-wife were divorced in 1952 by decree of the Circuit Court in and for the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida. At that time they were both residents of Florida. The decree provided for weekly payments for the support of the two minor children of the parties. After the divorce the appellant moved to Mexico and the appellee to New York. Each party has remarried. The record indicates that appellant failed to regularly make the payments for support of his children despite many demands therefor.
The appellee, while a resident of New York State, brought a petition for rule to’ show cause in the Florida court. The appellant answered setting up defenses going to (1) the jurisdiction of the court over the parties; (2) waiver; and (3) estoppel. Affirmative relief was sought by way of reduction of both the amount due and future payments and transference of custody of the younger child. The court entered judgment for the arrearage and attorney’s fees. The appellant assigns error upon the denial of each of the defenses above enumerated and urges that the court should have further extended the time for the taking of depositions. We affirm.
*605The question of the jurisdiction of the trial court to enforce its own decree for child support even though the parties have changed their residence has been settled in this State by the case of Kosch v. Kosch, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 547. It was there held that such a proceeding is a continuation of the original one, and reasonable notice which affords an opportunity to defend is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the parties for the enforcement of the decree. It is specifically set forth in the Kosch case that such notice may be by mail.
The appellant has failed to demonstrate error under his remaining points.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spencer v. Spencer, 311 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…Fla. 1959, 113 So. 2d 547. The opinion states that the sufficiency of notice in each particular instance must be tested by its reasonableness and adequacy of opportunity to be heard in the particular case. See also Prensky v. Prensky, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So. 2d 604; Sikes v. Sikes, Fla.App. 1973, 286 So. 2d 210. Does the holding that a proceeding to enforce the child support provisions may be served by mail include a proceeding to hold the respondent in contempt and thereafter order him committed to jail? The…
-
Pitt Tyson Maner, Jr. v. Ingela Idfors Maner, 412 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1969)…which affords an opportunity to be heard.” Kosch v. Kosch, 118 So. 2d 547, 550 (Fla.1959). We hold that the arrear-age judgments of June 19, 1967 and February 2, 1968 do not offend Florida’s doctrine of fair notice. Id., Accord: Prensky v. Prensky, 146 So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla.App.1962); Arrington v. Brown, 116 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla.App.1959).7 Consequently, we find that the district court correctly held that the judgments are entitled to enforcement. Affirmed. . The factual background of this dipute is reporte…
Authorities Cited
- Kosch v. Kosch, 113 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959)