Williamson v. Williamson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williamson v. Williamson

478 So. 2d 850, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2489, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16551

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1985

DocketNo. 85-900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 850 (Williamson v. Williamson) 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

Williamson v. Williamson, 478 So. 2d 850, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2489, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16551 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The non-final- order of the trial court is affirmed upon a holding that 1) the trial court clearly had in rem jurisdiction over the marriage to enter a final judgment of dissolution where the wife was properly served by constructive process, Gelkop v. Gelkop, 384 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), section 49.011(4), Florida Statutes (1983) and 2) the notice of action published in this cause was defective in that it failed to describe the property proceeded against as required by section 49.08(4), Florida Statutes (1983), thereby denying appellee procedural due process and depriving the trial court of perfected subject matter jurisdiction. Whigham v. Whigham, 464 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Stimpson v. Stimpson, 442 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Stock v. Stock, 410 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The non-final- order of the trial court is affirmed upon a holding that 1) the trial court clearly had in rem jurisdiction over the marriage to enter a final judgment of dissolution where the wife was properly served by constructive process, Gelkop v. Gelkop, 384 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), section 49.011(4), Florida Statutes (1983) and 2) the notice of action published in this cause was defective in that it failed to describe the property proceeded against as required by section 49.08(4), Florida Statutes (1983), thereby denying appellee procedural due process and depriving the trial court of perfected subject matter jurisdiction. Whigham v. Whigham, 464 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Stimpson v. Stimpson, 442 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Stock v. Stock, 410 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 850, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2489, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-williamson-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack