Russell v. Russell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Russell v. Russell

709 So. 2d 660, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5806, 1998 WL 259900

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1998

DocketNo. 98-1135

StatusPublished

This text of 709 So. 2d 660 (Russell v. Russell) 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

Russell v. Russell, 709 So. 2d 660, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5806, 1998 WL 259900 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband, Doyle E. Russell, seeks a ■writ of prohibition to stop the trial court from taking any further action in his dissolution proceedings after he filed a Voluntary Notice of Dismissal. Since he filed the petition, and since his wife did not file a counter-petition, he is correct in asserting that the trial judge was divested of jurisdiction to enter further orders. See Nathanson v. Nathanson, 693 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Under Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.420, dissolution actions may be voluntarily dismissed by party seeking affirmative relief, and there is no requirement for judicial approval or for joining non-spouse parties, even if there are minor children); see also Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv. v. Vasta, 360 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla.1978) (effect of voluntary dismissal is to remove completely from court’s consideration the power to enter an order, equivalent to a deprivation of “jurisdiction”).

PETITION GRANTED.

COBB, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The husband, Doyle E. Russell, seeks a ■writ of prohibition to stop the trial court from taking any further action in his dissolution proceedings after he filed a Voluntary Notice of Dismissal. Since he filed the petition, and since his wife did not file a counter-petition, he is correct in asserting that the trial judge was divested of jurisdiction to enter further orders. See Nathanson v. Nathanson, 693 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Under Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.420, dissolution actions may be voluntarily dismissed by party seeking affirmative relief, and there is no requirement for judicial approval or for joining non-spouse parties, even if there are minor children); see also Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv. v. Vasta, 360 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla.1978) (effect of voluntary dismissal is to remove completely from court’s consideration the power to enter an order, equivalent to a deprivation of “jurisdiction”).

PETITION GRANTED.

COBB, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 So. 2d 660, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5806, 1998 WL 259900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-russell-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack