Grey v. Grey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grey v. Grey

995 So. 2d 623, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 18612, 2008 WL 5191670

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2008

DocketNo. 2D07-5270

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 995 So. 2d 623 (Grey v. Grey) 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

Grey v. Grey, 995 So. 2d 623, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 18612, 2008 WL 5191670 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Annette M. Grey appeals the final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Hector Grey. She alleges, and Hector concedes, that the final judgment must be reversed because neither party presented the requisite evidence of residency in Florida. We reverse.

Section 61.021, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[t]o obtain a dissolution of marriage, one of the parties to the marriage must reside 6 months in the state before the filing of the petition.” Section 61.052(2) requires that proof of compliance with this residency requirement be corroborated, and it sets forth what constitutes sufficient corroborating evidence. Here, the parties concede that although they both admitted to the other’s residency in Florida in their pleadings, those admissions are insufficient to establish compliance with the residency requirement. See Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So.2d 712, 713 (Fla.1995) (“[CJorroborating testimony [624]*624cannot be waived by an admission that the residency requirement has been met.”).

In light of the absence of evidence to establish compliance with the statutory residency requirement, the trial court erred in entering the final judgment of dissolution. Consequently, this court may not consider the remaining issues raised in this appeal but must reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Speigner v. Speigner, 621 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

Annette M. Grey appeals the final judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Hector Grey. She alleges, and Hector concedes, that the final judgment must be reversed because neither party presented the requisite evidence of residency in Florida. We reverse.

Section 61.021, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[t]o obtain a dissolution of marriage, one of the parties to the marriage must reside 6 months in the state before the filing of the petition.” Section 61.052(2) requires that proof of compliance with this residency requirement be corroborated, and it sets forth what constitutes sufficient corroborating evidence. Here, the parties concede that although they both admitted to the other’s residency in Florida in their pleadings, those admissions are insufficient to establish compliance with the residency requirement. See Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So.2d 712, 713 (Fla.1995) (“[CJorroborating testimony [624]*624cannot be waived by an admission that the residency requirement has been met.”).

In light of the absence of evidence to establish compliance with the statutory residency requirement, the trial court erred in entering the final judgment of dissolution. Consequently, this court may not consider the remaining issues raised in this appeal but must reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Speigner v. Speigner, 621 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

995 So. 2d 623, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 18612, 2008 WL 5191670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grey-v-grey-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack