Oakley v. Oakley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oakley v. Oakley

439 So. 2d 1044, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23450

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2629

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 439 So. 2d 1044 (Oakley v. Oakley) 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

Oakley v. Oakley, 439 So. 2d 1044, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23450 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from that portion of a final judgment of dissolution requiring sale of the marital home and division of the proceeds. We determine that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the sale and reverse.

Sale of property held by tenants by the entireties being pursuant to partition, this relief was not sought by either party’s pleadings in this case. As established by Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So.2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a “trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine matters which are not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.” In addition to requiring appropriate pleadings, Florida courts have also mandated compliance with the due process steps found in Chapter 64 of the Florida Statutes. E.g., Bonifay v. Bonifay, 383 So.2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sanders v. Sanders, 351 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The instant trial court lacked both imperatives, and thus exceeded its jurisdiction.

LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from that portion of a final judgment of dissolution requiring sale of the marital home and division of the proceeds. We determine that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the sale and reverse.

Sale of property held by tenants by the entireties being pursuant to partition, this relief was not sought by either party’s pleadings in this case. As established by Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So.2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a “trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine matters which are not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.” In addition to requiring appropriate pleadings, Florida courts have also mandated compliance with the due process steps found in Chapter 64 of the Florida Statutes. E.g., Bonifay v. Bonifay, 383 So.2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sanders v. Sanders, 351 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The instant trial court lacked both imperatives, and thus exceeded its jurisdiction.

LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 So. 2d 1044, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oakley-v-oakley-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack