De Elizundia v. Elizundia

District Court of Appeal of Florida

De Elizundia v. Elizundia

820 So. 2d 966, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6899, 2002 WL 1021884

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 2002

DocketNos. 3D02-389, 3D02-571

StatusPublished

This text of 820 So. 2d 966 (De Elizundia v. Elizundia) 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

De Elizundia v. Elizundia, 820 So. 2d 966, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6899, 2002 WL 1021884 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Monica V. Cabrero de Elizundia appeals from two orders denying her motions to dismiss a petition for child custody filed by Oscar Elizundia. For the following reasons, we reverse.

At the time Mr. Elizundia’s petition was filed, a proceeding concerning the custody of the children was already pending in Mexico. ‘When the courts of more than one state have jurisdiction, priority in time of filing ordinarily controls which state shall proceed with the action so long as the court having such priority is ‘exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this act.’ ” Hickey v. Baxter, 461 So.2d 1364, 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)(quoting § 61.1314(1), Fla. Stat. (1983)).

The parties do not dispute that Mexico had priority based on time of filing. Therefore, this case turns on whether the Mexican court exercised jurisdiction. On February 5, 2002, the trial court entered an order denying Ms. Elizundia’s first motion to dismiss. At that time, it was arguably unclear whether the Mexican courts - had exercised jurisdiction. However, on February 18, 2002, an appellate court in Mexico issued an order containing the following clause:

Regarding the custody of the minor children ... the following is added: The delivery of the minors to their mother, ... whom should have legal custody of them, as well as the setting of the rules of the parental visitation regime will be agreed upon in the phase of the execution of this judgment.

Shortly thereafter, Ms. Elizundia filed a Second Motion to Dismiss or Abate Petition for Child Custody. On February 26, 2002, the trial court entered an order denying this motion. As the Mexican courts had clearly exercised jurisdiction by this time, the trial court should have granted the second motion to dismiss.

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

PER CURIAM.

Monica V. Cabrero de Elizundia appeals from two orders denying her motions to dismiss a petition for child custody filed by Oscar Elizundia. For the following reasons, we reverse.

At the time Mr. Elizundia’s petition was filed, a proceeding concerning the custody of the children was already pending in Mexico. ‘When the courts of more than one state have jurisdiction, priority in time of filing ordinarily controls which state shall proceed with the action so long as the court having such priority is ‘exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this act.’ ” Hickey v. Baxter, 461 So.2d 1364, 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)(quoting § 61.1314(1), Fla. Stat. (1983)).

The parties do not dispute that Mexico had priority based on time of filing. Therefore, this case turns on whether the Mexican court exercised jurisdiction. On February 5, 2002, the trial court entered an order denying Ms. Elizundia’s first motion to dismiss. At that time, it was arguably unclear whether the Mexican courts - had exercised jurisdiction. However, on February 18, 2002, an appellate court in Mexico issued an order containing the following clause:

Regarding the custody of the minor children ... the following is added: The delivery of the minors to their mother, ... whom should have legal custody of them, as well as the setting of the rules of the parental visitation regime will be agreed upon in the phase of the execution of this judgment.

Shortly thereafter, Ms. Elizundia filed a Second Motion to Dismiss or Abate Petition for Child Custody. On February 26, 2002, the trial court entered an order denying this motion. As the Mexican courts had clearly exercised jurisdiction by this time, the trial court should have granted the second motion to dismiss.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 966, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6899, 2002 WL 1021884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-elizundia-v-elizundia-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack