JESSICA FAY vs KENNETH CARTER

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 2, 2022
• Docket: 22-1258
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JESSICA FAY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-1258 LT Case No. 2022-DR-000558

KENNETH CARTER,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Nancy Alley, Senior Judge.

Thomas B. Feiter, of The Fighter Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

LAMBERT, C.J.

Jessica Fay appeals the final order dismissing her petition for

injunction for protection against domestic violence that she brought against

Appellee, Kenneth Carter, under section 741.30, Florida Statutes (2021). The trial court dismissed Fay’s petition finding that there was a “lack of

jurisdiction in Florida.” We reverse.

At the hearing held on Fay’s petition, Carter made an oral motion to

dismiss, arguing that the Florida court lacked jurisdiction because the acts

that allegedly formed the basis for the petition for injunction happened in the

State of Georgia. However, assuming that the alleged domestic violence

occurred in Georgia, a circuit court in Florida does not summarily lack subject

matter jurisdiction to grant an injunction for protection against domestic

violence. Section 741.30(1)(j), Florida Statutes, provides:

Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 47, a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence may be filed in the circuit where the petitioner currently or temporarily resides, where the respondent resides, or where the domestic violence occurred. There is no minimum requirement of residency to petition for an injunction for protection.

§ 741.30(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2021).

Fay’s sworn petition alleged that she is a resident of Florida, which has

not been challenged. No testimony was provided by or on behalf of Carter

at the hearing in support of his oral motion to dismiss. Carter did not argue

below that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. In light of the

2 foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for

“lack of jurisdiction.” 1

Accordingly, the final order of dismissal is reversed, and the matter is

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

1 Carter has not filed an answer brief. Finally, we take no position on the merits, if any, of Fay’s petition.