FELICIDAD GIBSON AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL GIBSON, 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 a trial court's order that entertained a counter-petition to modify a foreign divorce judgment in a URESA child support action, holding that Florida Statute § 88.291 prohibits courts from exercising jurisdiction over counter-petitions based on a party's participation in URESA proceedings.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the counter-petition because Florida Statute § 88.291 provides that participation in a URESA proceeding does not confer jurisdiction over the parties in any other proceeding, and strong public policy precludes counter-petitions in URESA actions except in limited circumstances where an original marriage dissolution proceeding is currently pending in the same court.
[1] Participation in a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) proceeding does not confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties in any other proce…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a counter-petition seeking modification of a foreign divorce judgment when filed in response to a URESA child support petiti…
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“participation in any proceeding under this [URESA] act does not confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding”
Establishes the statutory basis for holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the counter-petition based on the former wife's URESA participation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFelicidad Gibson, a California resident and former wife, filed a URESA petition against Michael Gibson for child support arrearages based on a Michiga…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory trial court order which adopts a general master’s report in an action for child support arrearages brought by a California resident, the former wife Felicidad Gibson, under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act [URESA], ch. 88, Fla.Stat. (1987). The order under review defers ruling on the child support petition, and takes jurisdiction over a counter-petition which seeks modification of a foreign (Michigan) final judgment of divorce filed by the former husband Michael Gibson. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii).
Because Section 88.291, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that “[participation in any proceeding under this [URESA] act does not confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding,” it is clear that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-petition to modify the foreign judgment of divorce between the parties based on the former wife Felicidad Gibson’s participation in the URESA proceeding below; moreover, the fact that the former wife may have been “served” with the counter-petition in California cannot change this result in view of the strong public policy against counter-petitions of this nature in URESA 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 related matter in the same court; under these limited circumstances, it has been held that a consolidation is advisable to avoid inconsistent results. Kirby v. Kirby, 405 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), dismissed, 412 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1982); Ray v. Pentlicki, 375 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
We, accordingly, reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to dismiss the counter-petition and proceed directly to the merits of the URESA child support petition.
As an aside, we would note that the former husband has filed an answer and affirmative defenses which, if proven, may very well negate the claim made in the URESA petition. We accordingly express no views on the merits of either the petition or answer. We hold only that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-petition filed below, and must now proceed to the merits of the URESA petition.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. The Honorable C. Lavon Ward, 600 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ted above, concluded that a trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a former husband’s suit against his former wife alleging that [*501] her prior URESA suit for support had been based on false statements. Similarly, in Gibson v. Gibson, 536 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the third district held that a wife’s participation in a URESA proceeding did not confer on the trial court subject matter jurisdiction to hear a counterpetition to modify a foreign divorce judgment. See also Helmick v. Helmick,…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. Schneider, 667 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.” The Department argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the father’s counter-petition under this section. We agree. See Gibson v. Gibson, 536 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the father’s counter-petition to modify the foreign judgment in a URESA action initiated by the mother). Although the counter-petition was outside its jurisdicti…
Authorities Cited
- Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Loehe v. State, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- RAY v. Pentlicki, 375 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Gena W. Kirby v. Kirby, 405 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 247 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Reckson v. Boorstein, 469 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)