LOIS A. SWAD, APPELLANT,
v.
WILMER L. SWAD, SR., 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.
Lois Swad appealed a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Wilmer Swad, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction and the validity of a separation agreement. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the trial court properly established subject matter jurisdiction and that the separation agreement was valid.
The trial court properly established subject matter jurisdiction because the appellee satisfied the six-month Florida residency requirement. The separation agreement was valid because it was executed voluntarily after full disclosure and was in the best interest of the parties.
[1] A court must carefully examine and determine its subject matter jurisdiction when a party questions it.
[2] A trial court's finding of residency for jurisdictional purposes, supported by competent substantial evidence, will not be set aside on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Where a party questions the subject matter jurisdiction of the court proceeding with a cause, the court must carefully examine the question and make a determination of its jurisdiction.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing subject matter jurisdiction challenges in family law proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilmer Swad, Sr. filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties entered into a post-nuptial separation agreement dated August 9, 1974. 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 For Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, respondent below, brings these consolidated appeals from a final judgment and amended final judgment dissolving her marriage with appellee, petitioner below. We affirm.
Appellant’s first point on appeal is that the trial court erred in determining appellee sustained his burden of proving residency in Florida for six months preceding the filing of his petition for dissolution of marriage and assuming subject matter jurisdiction of the cause.
Where a party questions the subject matter jurisdiction of the court proceeding with a cause, the court must carefully examine the question and make a determination of its jurisdiction. In the instant case, where the question of the subject matter jurisdiction of the court was raised, the trial court made a thorough examination of the question and specifically found as follows:
“Petitioner, Wilmer L. Swad, Sr., resided in Florida for six months before filing the petition in this cause. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this action.”
Our review of the record shows that the trial court’s finding was properly supported by the evidence. With this in mind, we feel that the trial court’s finding cannot be set aside.
Appellant contends in her second point on appeal that the trial court erred in upholding the validity of a post-nuptial separation agreement entered into between the parties.
In this regard, the trial court found as follows: “The Separation Agreement between the parties dated August 9, 1974, which was introduced into evidence and which is attached to the Final Judgment dated May 2, 1977, was executed voluntarily after full disclosure and is for the best interest of the parties and is approved and incorporated in this Amended Final Judgment by reference and the parties are ordered to comply with it.”
Our review of the record shows that the trial court’s finding was supported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, appellant’s second point on appeal is without merit. See, e. g., Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976), and Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So. 2d 766 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
Based upon our determinations set forth above, the judgments appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roffe v. Moises Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…zog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268, 1271 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1981); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52, 55 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); see Swad v. Swad, 363 So. 2d 18 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). With one exception, the final judgment is properly affirmable without modification on this basis alone. Several of the points raised, however, merit discussion in some further detail. The wife claims error in the court’s award as…
-
Coll v. Coll, 507 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…4] Finally, we find the husband’s arguments going to the reciprocal awards of jointly held real property and proof of residency to be without merit. See Tronconi v. Tronconi, supra; Frantz v. Frantz, 447 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Swad v. Swad, 363 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Klarish v. Klarish, 296 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Therefore, the find judgment of dissolution appealed herein is hereby affirmed in all respects. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Oaklander v. Jules Oaklander, 351 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)