IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEPHEN W. JACOBSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY ANNA JACOBSEN, 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 venue for child custody matters should be in the county where the husband and children reside, not where the wife filed suit.
The husband and children resided in Leon County, while the wife filed for child support, separate maintenance, and child custody in Orange County. 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 cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Appellant Stephen W. Jacobsen takes an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Orange County denying a motion to transfer for improper venue.
Appellee Mary Anna Jacobsen sought child support, separate maintenance and child custody. Appellant and the children reside in Leon County and have never resided in Orange County. The husband moved to dismiss on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction.. After the court denied the motion to dismiss, the husband filed a motion for transfer of venue. The court denied this motion and the instant appeal ensued.
It is uncontroverted that at the time the suit was instituted the husband and the children were residing in Leon County and had never resided in Orange County. This case is governed by the principles reviewed in Waterhouse v. Pringle, 68 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1953). See also Rivenbark v. Rivenbark, 335 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Dones v. Green, 212 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
The propriety of the venue of the separate maintenance aspect of this suit was accepted in appellant’s motion for transfer of venue as being properly before the court. REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of order transferring venue of the child custody aspect of the suit to Leon County,
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lucinda M. Johnson and James W. Johnson, 408 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1982)…PER CURIAM. The decision of the district court of appeal, 389 So. 2d 332, is approved on the authority of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lackore, 408 So. 2d 1040 (1982). SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.…
-
Lucinda Johnson v. The Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. of Shelby, 412 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Appellee’s “Motion to Stay” will be treated as a motion to clarify our brief opinion to certify conflict, 389 So. 2d 332, so further review will not be precluded. The decision sub judice by relying on State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), is in direct conflict with Carter v. Government Employee’s Insurance Company, 377 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Rivenbark v. Norine Deep Rivenbark, 335 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Dones v. Green, 212 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Webster v. State, 68 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1953)
- Waterhouse v. Pringle, 68 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1953)