Young-Maile v. Maile

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Young-Maile v. Maile

813 So. 2d 1077, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5222, 2002 WL 662824

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 24, 2002·No. No. 4D01-3777·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order that denied appellant’s rule 1.540 motion. We find competent, substantial evidence in the record to establish appellee’s intent and presence within the State of Florida for the six months that preceded his filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. See § 61.021, Fla. Stat. (1999)(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); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 556 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 569 So.2d 1279 (1990); see also Hunter v. Hunter, 736 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

KLEIN, STEVENSON, JJ., and DELL, JOHN W., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order that denied appellant’s rule 1.540 motion. We find competent, substantial evidence in the record to establish appellee’s intent and presence within the State of Florida for the six months that preceded his filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. See § 61.021, Fla. Stat. (1999)(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); Jenkins v. Jenkins, 556 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 569 So.2d 1279 (1990); see also Hunter v. Hunter, 736 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

KLEIN, STEVENSON, JJ., and DELL, JOHN W., Senior Judge, concur.

Young-Maile v. Maile, 813 So. 2d 1077, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5222, 2002 WL 662824 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

813 So. 2d 1077 (Young-Maile v. Maile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related