JANE M. SIMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM FREAR SIMPSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's decision allowing a counterclaim for divorce in a reciprocal support enforcement action, holding that Chapter 88 confers jurisdiction only for enforcing support orders, not for other proceedings.
Chapter 88 of the Florida Statutes confers jurisdiction on circuit courts solely for enforcing reciprocal support orders, and a counterclaim for divorce is outside that jurisdiction.
[1] Participation in reciprocal support enforcement proceedings under Chapter 88, Florida Statutes, does not confer jurisdiction on a court to entertain other proceedings suc…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Participation in any proceedings under this chapter shall not confer upon any court jurisdiction of any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.”
Statutory language from § 88.291, Fla.Stat., cited as the basis for reversing the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction over the divorce counterclaim.
Jane Simpson filed a petition under Florida's uniform reciprocal enforcement of support law to enforce a Pennsylvania support order against William Si…
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 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Of Support Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, commenced an action by filing a petition and affidavit pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 88, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., otherwise known as the “uniform reciprocal enforcement of support law”, to require appellee-defendant to pay the arrearages due under a support order entered in the State of Pennsylvania. By appropriate motion, the appellant attacked the counterclaim contending the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain same pursuant to the express provisions of § 88.291, Fla.Stat., F.S. A.1 The trial court denied the motion and this appeal ensued. We reverse.
By the clear import of the statute, the chapter was to confer jurisdiction on the circuit court solely for the purpose of enforcing a reciprocal support order. The actions of the trial judge should have been governed by the statute as interpreted in Blois v. Blois, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 373, and therefore the order here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, with directions to the trial court to dismiss the counterclaim for divorce.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Felicidad Gibson & the Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Gibson, 536 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…RESA actions. Scales v. Scales, 469 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1986); see also Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Simpson v. Simpson, 247 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Indeed, the only time a URESA support petition has been held properly joinable with another proceeding is where, unlike this case, the original marriage dissolution proceeding involving the two parties is presently pending on a r…
-
Vecellio v. Florio Joseph Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…hus,' it is our view that the trial court erred when it enlarged its jurisdiction to adjudicate and enforce child visitation rights as we hold that the only matter susceptible of adjudication was that of the duty of support. See, Simpson v. Simpson, 247 So. 2d 792 (3d DCA Fla.1971); Blois v. Blois, 138 So. 2d 373 (1st DCA Fla.1962); Clarke v. Blackburn, 151 So. 2d 325 (2d DCA Fla.1963). See Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education, Florida Family Law, § 35.30 (1967), where it is stated: “The law is silent rega…
-
Ellsworth P. Scales v. Scales, 469 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…Florida courts have refused to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Florida courts to adjudicate other issues. Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). See also Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Simpson v. Simpson, 247 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). In short, she claims that in a URESA proceeding the foreign court has jurisdiction only to determine the obligation and duty of support. In Balasco v. County of San Diego, 140 Ga.App. 482, 231 S.E. 2d 485 (1976), the Georgia Cou…
Authorities Cited
- Blois v. Blois, 138 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)