Odom v. Odom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Odom v. Odom

620 So. 2d 1130, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7066, 1993 WL 242663

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 1993

DocketNo. 92-4286

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 620 So. 2d 1130 (Odom v. Odom) 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

Odom v. Odom, 620 So. 2d 1130, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7066, 1993 WL 242663 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ZEHMER, Chief Judge.

We affirm the order granting visitation pursuant to the husband’s motion for temporary relief. The child had resided in Madison County, Florida, for more than six months prior to the date the mother removed the child from Florida to Kentucky. This action was filed by the husband less than six months after the child had been removed. Thus the court below correctly ruled that Florida is the home state of the child and properly exercised jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.1308(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1991). As the wife had not filed a custody action in the state of Kentucky prior to the filing of the Florida action, her subsequently filed action in the state of Kentucky does not take priority over the Florida action. Section 61.1314, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Appellant argues that the Florida court should defer jurisdiction to the court hearing the Kentucky action on grounds that the Kentucky court is, under the circumstances, the more convenient and appropriate forum to decide the custody issue. While the Florida court is authorized to grant such relief under section 61.1316, Florida Statutes (1991), that precise issue has not been ruled on by the trial court. Accordingly; this affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant’s right -to a hearing on a motion to have the circuit court abate this action and defer its jurisdiction to the action pending in the Kentucky court.

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

ZEHMER, Chief Judge.

We affirm the order granting visitation pursuant to the husband’s motion for temporary relief. The child had resided in Madison County, Florida, for more than six months prior to the date the mother removed the child from Florida to Kentucky. This action was filed by the husband less than six months after the child had been removed. Thus the court below correctly ruled that Florida is the home state of the child and properly exercised jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.1308(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1991). As the wife had not filed a custody action in the state of Kentucky prior to the filing of the Florida action, her subsequently filed action in the state of Kentucky does not take priority over the Florida action. Section 61.1314, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Appellant argues that the Florida court should defer jurisdiction to the court hearing the Kentucky action on grounds that the Kentucky court is, under the circumstances, the more convenient and appropriate forum to decide the custody issue. While the Florida court is authorized to grant such relief under section 61.1316, Florida Statutes (1991), that precise issue has not been ruled on by the trial court. Accordingly; this affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant’s right -to a hearing on a motion to have the circuit court abate this action and defer its jurisdiction to the action pending in the Kentucky court.

AFFIRMED.

ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 So. 2d 1130, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7066, 1993 WL 242663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-odom-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack