Williamson v. Williamson

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JENNIFER WILLIAMSON,

Appellant,

v.

RODNEY WILLIAMSON,

Appellee.

No. 2D2025-1846

August 19, 2026

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; James S. Moody, III, Judge.

Mark F. Baseman of Felix and Baseman, Tampa, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SLEET, Judge.

Jennifer Williamson, the Wife, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing without prejudice her petition for dissolution of her marriage to Rodney Williamson, the Husband. Because the trial court dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens without addressing required factors and without providing the Wife notice and an ability to be heard, we reverse.

The Wife filed her petition for dissolution in Hillsborough County on March 28, 2022, alleging that she had been a Florida resident for more than six months prior to her filing the petition. 1 The parties married in Nevada in November 2000 but lived together in Hillsborough County before separating in September 2021. They share two children.2 The Husband was not a resident of Florida at the time the Wife filed her petition; he resides in Louisiana.

On May 31, 2023, the Husband filed his Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens, alleging that the Wife no longer resided in Hillsborough County but instead had relocated with the children to Utah. He further alleged that he had only lived in Florida for approximately two months during the marriage. The Husband acknowledged that the Wife was living in Florida when she filed her petition but argued that the court should dismiss for forum non conveniens and suggested that Utah may be a proper alternate forum. The Husband subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss, renewing the allegations of the previous motion and raising new disputes on temporary support payments. The trial court entered an order denying the motions, noting that "the parties ha[d] agreed . . . to discuss a possible settlement of all claims against the other party."

1 See § 61.021, Fla. Stat. (2021) ("To obtain a dissolution of

marriage, one of the parties to the marriage must reside [six] months in the state before the filing of the petition.").

2 When the Wife filed her petition in 2022, the parties' older child

was eighteen years old and the younger child was sixteen. Although both children reached the age of majority prior to the April 26, 2025, final hearing below, the Wife informed the court at that hearing that both were disabled and received services through the Florida Department of Education.

3

Then at an April 26, 2024, case management conference, the Wife appeared remotely and stated on the record that she was living in Kansas City, Missouri, and that she and the children would be returning to Florida "in two weeks . . . [p]ermanently." She indicated that she and the children "were displaced by FEMA so we are moving around" but that the children were enrolled in Florida virtual school while living in Missouri. When asked by the court where she would live in Florida with the children, the Wife responded:

We don't really know yet to be frank. . . . We have a friend we are going to stay with for a few days until . . . . [The Husband]'s over $20,000 on arrears, so until he becomes current. And I don't know -- I guess we are homeless. I guess we will live on the street in Florida. I don't know anymore. When the Wife acknowledged that she had a Louisiana driver's license, the court suggested that she move to Louisiana, where the Husband "would be able to have further contact with his children." But the Husband affirmatively stated that he did not want to have contact with his children at that time,3 and the Wife stated that she had no ties to Louisiana other than the Husband. She further stated that the children receive services through the Florida Department of Education for unspecified disabilities and obtain food assistance benefits through the State of Florida. The court then announced:

I'm considering changing the venue in this case because nobody lives in Florida and when [the Wife] potentially comes back to Florida, there is no way of knowing where she's going to be in Florida or if she's going to stay in Florida. Seems like the only stable parent with the stable address is in Louisiana.

3 The Husband informed the court that the parties' daughter had

made what he maintained were false allegations of abuse against him and that he did not feel safe alone with his children for fear that his daughter would continue to make such accusations.

4

The Husband's counsel argued that the court should "dismiss[] the case without prejudice to [the Wife] to bring any actions that she wants in Louisiana." When the Wife reiterated that she was returning to Florida permanently and would initially be staying with friends, the court stated:

My concern is that there really are no ties. Yes, [the children] are doing virtual school, but you've moved them around several times. You've gone to Missouri, there was another point where you would not even identify where you were and then you had a driver's license in Louisiana.

.... So as a result of that, I'm going to sua sponte dismiss this [for] forum non conveniens and . . . you can file it . . . my suggestion would be Louisiana again because that is where your husband is and there's been nothing notable done in this case to get it . . . to go forward.

.... . . . You bounce around for whatever reason. And the only place that really there is any real ties would be Louisiana and you still even have a driver's license in Louisiana, the father is in Louisiana. So that's the only stable party with a stable situation is in Louisiana. The court then asked counsel for the Husband to prepare an order dismissing for forum non conveniens "without prejudice and she can file it in Louisiana or wherever else she actually thinks it's appropriate other than Florida." (Emphasis added.) The court subsequently issued a written order that stated that the parties and their children do not reside in Florida "at the present time," that Louisiana is where the Wife has a driver's license and where the Husband resides, and that the Wife plans to return to Florida but has no prospective Florida address. The court's order dismissed "this cause as a forum non conveniens, without

5

prejudice for either party to re-file [sic] in Florida should either party reestablish [sic] legal residency in Florida at some future time."

On appeal, the Wife first argues that the order should be reversed because the trial court did not consider the required factors in determining that Florida is an inconvenient forum for her dissolution petition.4 We agree.

"The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens . . . is an equitable, judicially crafted rule designed to allow a court to dismiss, in certain limited circumstances, a lawsuit with little connection to Florida that would be better suited and fairly litigated elsewhere." Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1090 (Fla. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Askew v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 385 So. 3d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 2024). In Cortez, the Florida Supreme Court explained that it has adopted the federal test for dismissing based on an inconvenient forum:

[1] As a prerequisite, the court must establish whether an adequate alternative forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case. [2] Next, the trial judge must consider all relevant factors of private interest, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs' initial forum choice. [3] If the trial judge finds this balance of private interests in equipoise or near equipoise, he must then determine whether or not factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of a trial in [another] forum. [4] If he decides that the balance favors such a . . . forum, the trial judge must finally ensure that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.

4 The Wife preserved both of her arguments on appeal by raising

them in a motion for rehearing, which the trial court denied.

6

Id. at 1091 (alterations in original) (quoting Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Cont'l Ins., 674 So. 2d 86, 90 (Fla. 1996)); see also Kusayev v. Kusayev, 317 So. 3d 132, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (discussing the factors set forth in Kinney in the context of a child support action). Additionally, "[a]n examination of private interests . . . essentially focuses on four concerns: access to evidence, access to witnesses, enforcement of judgments, and the practicalities and expenses associated with the lawsuit." Cortez, 123 So. 3d at 1092 (citing Kinney, 674 So. 2d at 91).

Here, although the trial court is correct that the Wife's ties to Florida are limited, it is undisputed that she was a Florida resident when she filed her dissolution petition in 2022 and had been for at least the six months prior. See § 61.021, Fla. Stat. (2021). A subsequent change of forum cannot be based on the trial court's mere suggestion of a possible alternate forum. Rather, in order to dismiss based on an inconvenient forum, the court must determine that the factors set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in Cortez and Kinney have been satisfied. See Cortez, 123 So. 2d at 1091; see also Kusayev, 317 So. 3d at 134; cf. § 61.520 (allowing for dismissal of child custody actions brought under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act on the basis of inconvenient forum only after the trial court has "consider[ed] whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction" and other enumerated relevant factors); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.061(a) (allowing for dismissal of civil cases "on the ground that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction other than Florida when" enumerated factors mirroring those set forth in Cortez and Kinney are satisfied).5

5 We recognize that rule 1.061(a) does not apply to family law cases

because the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure were amended in

7

Here, the trial court did not address these required considerations or hear any evidence as to these factors, and neither the Wife nor the Husband was sworn in to give testimony under oath. In fact, it is clear from the record that the court did not even identify a specific alternate forum. Although the court pointed out that the Husband resides in Louisiana and that the Wife has a Louisiana driver's license, the court also stated that the dismissal was to be "without prejudice and [that the Wife] can file it in Louisiana or wherever else she actually thinks it's appropriate other than Florida." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we must reverse. See Kusayev, 317 So. 3d at 134 (reversing—in a family law case not involving a custody determination—because "[t]he trial court never commented on the Kinney factors at the hearing or in its written order" and "remand[ing] for the trial court to analyze the Kinney factors and, if necessary, hold an evidentiary hearing").

The Wife also argues on appeal that she was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Wife requested the April 26, 2024, case management hearing to address the Husband's temporary support arrearages. After ascertaining the Wife's location, the trial court announced, "I'm considering changing the venue in this case." Neither the Wife nor the Husband were on notice that the issue would be addressed at that hearing.

2017 to remove from the former version of rule 12.020 the following language: "The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in all family law matters except as otherwise provided in these rules." In re Amends. to Fla. Fam. Law Rules of Proc., 214 So. 3d 400, 409 (Fla. 2017). However, rule 10.061(a) supports the proposition that dismissal of an action for forum non conveniens reasonably should include certain considerations. And no other Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure addresses inconvenient forums.

8

We agree with the Wife that this was a denial of due process and, therefore, reversible error. See Stopa v. McGrath, 373 So. 3d 682, 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) ("[A] lower court wishing to make a forum non conveniens transfer must provide the parties with appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard." (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ground Improvement Techs., Inc. v. Merchs. Bonding Co., 707 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998))); see also Burgos v. Vargas, 395 So. 3d 683, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) ("[W]ithout notice and without allowing the parties to submit [evidence] . . . the trial court determined on its own motion that the North Carolina court was the more convenient forum. Making this determination without granting the parties an opportunity to be heard is generally error." (footnote omitted)); cf. Singer v. Singer, 278 So. 3d 79, 80-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("[O]rdering a change of venue without notice is a denial of due process.").

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

VILLANTI and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.