ELIZABETH GRAVES COYNE, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM COYNE, 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.
The court held that a wife's appearance in a California divorce proceeding, in which she challenged the court's subject matter jurisdiction but did not contest personal jurisdiction, constituted a general appearance under Florida law, thereby submitting to the California court's jurisdiction.
The court held that the wife's appearance constituted a general appearance under Florida law, which submits a party to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. The appearance challenged only subject matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction, and therefore did not preserve the special appearance status.
[1] When foreign law is not pleaded in the trial court, the matter is to be determined by the law of the forum.
[2] An appearance by counsel in a foreign jurisdiction, without contest over personal jurisdiction, constitutes a general appearance.
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“The wife filed an appearance which alleged that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. No contest was made over jurisdiction of her person.”
Establishes the procedural posture: the wife challenged subject matter jurisdiction only, not personal jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant-wife filed an appearance in a California divorce proceeding. In that appearance, she alleged that the California court lacked jurisdicti…
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 Special Appearance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The basic question in this cause is whether the appellant-wife made a general appearance or a special appearance in a California divorce proceeding. The wife filed an appearance which alleged that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. No contest was made over jurisdiction of her person. Ordinarily, the matter would be determined by California law, but no foreign law was pleaded in the trial court. See: Hieber v. Hieber, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 646; Cordrey v. Cordrey, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 234; Movielab, Inc. v. Davis, Fla.App.1969, 217 So. 2d 890; § 92.031, Fla.Stat.
Therefore, we are left to a situation where, no law to the contrary being shown as to the foreign forum, the matter is to be determined by the law of this forum. Kingston v. Quimby, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 455; Miller v. Shulman, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 589; Hieber v. Hieber, supra; Cordrey v. Cordrey, supra. And, pursuant to the following Florida authorities, we hold that counsel’s appearance for the appellant in California constituted a general appearance. Green v. Hood, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 223; St. Anne Airways, Inc. v. Webb, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 142. Further, it appears that the actions of the appellant, through her counsel, in California constituted a general appearance under the reasoning of the following California authorities: Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 25 Cal.2d 842, 155 P. 2d 823; Wilson v. Barry, 102 Cal.App.2d 778, 228 P. 2d 331; Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n v. Harrah, 113 Cal.App.2d 639, 248 P. 2d 814; Smith v. Smith, 120 Cal.App.2d 474, 261 P. 2d 567.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000)…cases where choice-of-law provisions did not govern the dispute. See Gustafson v. Jensen, 515 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA [*311] 1987) (applying Florida law to determine the enforceability of a premarital agreement executed in Denmark); Coyne v. Coyne, 325 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (determining whether an appearance was made in a California divorce proceeding). Contrary to the nurseries’ assertions, courts have uniformly enforced choice-of-law provisions without requiring the parties to brief the law of the…
-
Anne-Lise Gustafson v. Dorrit Jensen, 515 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ein presumes that, where a party seeking to rely upon foreign law fails to demonstrate that the foreign law is different from the law of Florida, the law is the same as Florida. Collins v. Collins, 160 Fla. 732, 36 So. 2d 417 (1948); Coyne v. Coyne, 325 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 339 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1976); Morin v. Morin, 466 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Henning Jensen failed to establish that the law of Denmark permits the enforcement of antenuptial agreements with neither fair provision for…
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ciarrochi, 573 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Where the law of a foreign forum is claimed to be dispositional, yet no foreign law is pleaded to the trial court, the matter is to be determined by the law of this forum. See Coyne v. Coyne, 325 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Miller v. Shulman, 122 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Further, the choice of law doctrine presumes that, “where a party seeking to rely upon foreign law fails to demonstrate that the foreign law is different from the law in Flo…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kingston v. Quimby, 80 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1955)
- Green v. Hood, 120 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Movielab, Inc. v. Davis, 217 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Hieber v. Hieber, 151 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Miller v. Shulman, 122 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Cordrey v. Cordrey, 206 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- ST. Anne Airways, Inc. v. Webb, 142 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)