Perez v. Perez

519 So. 2d 1104, 1988 WL 8128
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 9, 1988
Docket87-1203
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 519 So. 2d 1104 (Perez v. Perez) 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
Perez v. Perez, 519 So. 2d 1104, 1988 WL 8128 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

519 So.2d 1104 (1988)

Rafael PEREZ, Appellant,
v.
Elizabeth PEREZ, Appellee.

No. 87-1203.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

February 9, 1988.

Karlan & Gerson and Charlotte Karlan, Miami, for appellant.

Mark Friedman, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The judgment of dissolution entered after hearing following the entry of a default is reversed in its entirety for numerous reasons, of which the most prominent are (a) the failure of the complaint to allege that either party was a resident of Florida for the statutory period deprived the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cause, Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 So. 923 (1907); Gredler v. Gredler, 36 Fla. 372, 18 So. 762 (1895); (b) the appellant husband's failure to receive notice of the hearing deprived him of the basic requirements of due process, Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Heritage Casket & Vault Ind., Inc. v. Sunshine Bank, 428 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1957); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Matthews v. Matthews, 376 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); (c) that portion of the judgment granting "custody" of the parties' child was plainly erroneous both because the complaint did not comply with section 61.1308 or 61.132, Florida Statutes (1985), and because the relief granted was not sought in the complaint and therefore could not be awarded in a proceeding by default, Hernandez v. Hernandez, 444 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1984); see also Williams v. Williams, 227 So.2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); and (d) the award of the husband's interest in the marital home to the wife was similarly not supported by any such demand in the complaint.

Reversed.

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

Related

Strommen v. Strommen
927 So. 2d 176 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Rogers v. Rogers
905 So. 2d 1050 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Kochinsky v. Moore
698 So. 2d 397 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Chaddick v. Monopoli
677 So. 2d 347 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Orbe v. Orbe
651 So. 2d 1295 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Kilvington v. Kilvington
632 So. 2d 701 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
In Re Interest of LW
486 N.W.2d 486 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1992)
Walt v. Walt
574 So. 2d 205 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
West v. West
534 So. 2d 893 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
519 So. 2d 1104, 1988 WL 8128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-perez-fladistctapp-1988.