Bosh v. Mathis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bosh v. Mathis

99 So. 3d 631, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759, 2012 WL 5272937

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 2012

DocketNo. 5D11-2036

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 So. 3d 631 (Bosh v. Mathis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bosh v. Mathis, 99 So. 3d 631, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759, 2012 WL 5272937 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Christopher Bosh, challenges a nonfinal “Order on Status Hearing” in an action for domestication and modification of a Maryland child custody order. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) and 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because part of the order is in the nature of an injunction and part of the order determines jurisdiction over the parties.

On the merits, we agree with Appellant that in finding personal jurisdiction over him, finding subject matter jurisdiction over “all issues related to the child,” and ordering the parties to dismiss their Maryland actions, the trial court violated his due process rights by granting relief that was not requested, noticed for hearing, or litigated at the status hearing. The trial court, sua sponte, set the case for a status hearing and heard argument on contested factual issues. The trial court then made several rulings that were not noticed, not sought, and not based on the presentation of evidence. The trial court also ordered the parties to voluntarily dismiss their Maryland actions, without authority to do so, instead of following the procedure set out in the Uniform Child Custody Judgment and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), sections 61.501-.542, Florida Statutes.

Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with directions that the trial court follow the procedures established in the UCCJEA in determining whether it should proceed to hear any matter related to the custody of the child. [632]*632To the extent that Appellee seeks to litigate child support issues, the trial court must grant Appellant an opportunity, upon proper notice, to present evidence and argument in support of his assertion that Texas has jurisdiction over that issue.¹

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

SAWAYA, LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Christopher Bosh, challenges a nonfinal “Order on Status Hearing” in an action for domestication and modification of a Maryland child custody order. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) and 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because part of the order is in the nature of an injunction and part of the order determines jurisdiction over the parties.

On the merits, we agree with Appellant that in finding personal jurisdiction over him, finding subject matter jurisdiction over “all issues related to the child,” and ordering the parties to dismiss their Maryland actions, the trial court violated his due process rights by granting relief that was not requested, noticed for hearing, or litigated at the status hearing. The trial court, sua sponte, set the case for a status hearing and heard argument on contested factual issues. The trial court then made several rulings that were not noticed, not sought, and not based on the presentation of evidence. The trial court also ordered the parties to voluntarily dismiss their Maryland actions, without authority to do so, instead of following the procedure set out in the Uniform Child Custody Judgment and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), sections 61.501-.542, Florida Statutes.

Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with directions that the trial court follow the procedures established in the UCCJEA in determining whether it should proceed to hear any matter related to the custody of the child. [632]*632To the extent that Appellee seeks to litigate child support issues, the trial court must grant Appellant an opportunity, upon proper notice, to present evidence and argument in support of his assertion that Texas has jurisdiction over that issue.¹

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

SAWAYA, LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 3d 631, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759, 2012 WL 5272937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosh-v-mathis-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack