Goldman v. Goldman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goldman v. Goldman

523 So. 2d 781, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 984, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1551, 1988 WL 34659

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1988

DocketNo. 87-346

StatusPublished

This text of 523 So. 2d 781 (Goldman v. Goldman) 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

Goldman v. Goldman, 523 So. 2d 781, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 984, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1551, 1988 WL 34659 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

The wife appeals an order modifying the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to expand the husband’s visitation rights. The wife argues that because the parties’ child resided outside the state of Florida for more than six months prior to the commencement of the proceedings, Florida is not the child’s “home state” and that the trial court should not have exercised jurisdiction in this case. (§ 61.1306(5), Fla. Stat.) We agree. Further, there is no evidence in the record of exceptional circumstances (§ 61.1308(1), Fla.Stat.), justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in this case despite the fact that Florida is not the child’s “home state.” Therefore, the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction in this case. See Prickett v. Prickett, 498 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Hegler v. Hegler, 383 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also Baker, Does Florida Create Intractable Jurisdictional Deadlocks?, 62 Florida Bar Journal 43 (March 1988).

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ„ concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

The wife appeals an order modifying the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to expand the husband’s visitation rights. The wife argues that because the parties’ child resided outside the state of Florida for more than six months prior to the commencement of the proceedings, Florida is not the child’s “home state” and that the trial court should not have exercised jurisdiction in this case. (§ 61.1306(5), Fla. Stat.) We agree. Further, there is no evidence in the record of exceptional circumstances (§ 61.1308(1), Fla.Stat.), justifying the exercise of jurisdiction in this case despite the fact that Florida is not the child’s “home state.” Therefore, the trial court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction in this case. See Prickett v. Prickett, 498 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Hegler v. Hegler, 383 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also Baker, Does Florida Create Intractable Jurisdictional Deadlocks?, 62 Florida Bar Journal 43 (March 1988).

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 781, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 984, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1551, 1988 WL 34659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-goldman-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack