VERNECE HUTCHINS
v.
ESTATE OF DERRICK W. HUTCHINS, NEW LIFE MINISTRIES OF ORLANDO INC., DENNIS HUTCHINS, TANGELA THOMAS, ABRAHAM ENESSI, RICHARD JONES, RACHEL BOND, MALON MOYE MOORE, KEITH GRAYSON, GREGORY ATKINSON, KATRINA SPRINGER HUTCHINS
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.
Vernece Hutchins appealed the trial court's dismissal of her petition to domesticate and enforce a 2010 South Carolina divorce judgment against her former husband's estate and related parties. The appellate court reversed the dismissal because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss the case without notice to Appellant and an opportunity to be heard, violating due process.
The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction regardless of how the case was classified (probate, support, or civil creditor claim), as circuit courts have exclusive original jurisdiction in matters not cognizable by county courts and in proceedings relating to settlement of estates of decedents. However, the dismissal order was entered in violation of due process because it was entered without notice to Appellant and without a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity to be heard on the separate issue of case jurisdiction.
[1] A trial court's dismissal of an action must be entered only after providing notice to all parties and affording them an opportunity to be heard, and failure to do so cons…
[2] Circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear proceedings relating to the settlement of estates of decedents, including petitions for domestication and enforcem…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Regardless of whether the case was classified as a probate, support, or civil creditor claim, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction.”
Establishes that the trial court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction regardless of case classification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVernece Hutchins sought to domesticate and enforce a 2010 South Carolina dissolution judgment dissolving her marriage to Derrick W. Hutchins and enfor…
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 Case Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-3762 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-DR-013795-O
_____________________________
VERNECE HUTCHINS,
Appellant,
v.
ESTATE OF DERRICK W. HUTCHINS, KATRINA SPINGER HUTCHINS, NEW LIFE MINISTRIES OF ORLANDO, INC., DENNIS HUTCHINS, TANGELA THOMAS, ABRAHAM ENESSI, RICHARD JONES, RACHEL BOND, MARLON MOYE MOORE, KEITH GRAYSON, GREGORY ATKINSON, STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN HANCOCK INSURANCE SERVICES,
Appellees.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
Diana M. Tennis, Judge.
October 4, 2024 WOZNIAK, J.
Appellant Vernece Hutchins appeals the order dismissing her petition seeking to domesticate and enforce a 2010 South Carolina dissolution judgment dissolving her marriage to Derrick Hutchins (“Former Husband”) and two subsequent contempt orders against Former Husband for his violation of the judgment and incorporated settlement agreement. Because the dismissal order, which was premised on the trial court’s erroneous determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, was entered without notice to Appellant, the facts and circumstances of this case require that we reverse.
Appellant’s Petition for Domestication and Enforcement of a Foreign
Judgment named Former Husband’s estate1 and numerous other parties, including
New Life Ministries of Orlando, Inc., a church purportedly founded by Former
Husband, and church elders and trustees (collectively “New Life”) as respondents.
New Life moved to dismiss improper parties and to dismiss the entire petition,
arguing that the foreign orders could not be enforced against third parties as they were not parties to any agreement or order of the South Carolina courts and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Without holding a hearing and giving
Appellant an opportunity to be heard on this matter, the trial court dismissed the petition. The trial court agreed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and suggested that for Appellant to proceed against the multiple named respondents, she could obtain a civil court judgment and open a probate action as a creditor of Former
Husband’s estate.
Regardless of whether the case was classified as a probate, support, or civil creditor claim, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. See § 26.012(2)(a)–
(b), Fla. Stat. (2022) (recognizing exclusive original jurisdiction of circuit courts
“[i]n all actions at law not cognizable by the county courts” and “[o]f proceedings relating to the settlement of the estates of decedents . . . and other jurisdiction usually pertaining to courts of probate”); In the Int. of Peterson, 364 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1978) (“The internal operation of the court system and the assignment of judges to various divisions does not limit a particular judge’s jurisdiction.”).
However, whether the trial court had case jurisdiction—which “refers to a court’s power over a particular case within its subject matter jurisdiction”2—is a separate issue; it must be addressed, after appropriate notice to all parties, at a hearing at which all parties have an opportunity to be heard. We do not suggest the outcome of such hearing but rather confine our opinion to the necessity of remedying the due process violation presented here.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. TRAVER, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur. Carlton Pierce, of Carlton Pierce, P.A., Boynton Beach, for Appellant. Joshua Levine, of Trust Counsel, PLLC, Coral Gables, for Appellees, Estate of Derrick W. Hutchins and Katrina Spinger Hutchins. No Appearance for Appellees New Life Ministries of Orlando, Inc., Dennis Hutchins, Tangela Thomas, Abraham Enessi, Richard Jones, Rachel Bond, Marlon Moye Moore, Keith Grayson, Gregory Atkinson, Standard Insurance Company, or John Hancock Insurance Services.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED