Durand v. Durand, 90-494
| Decision Date | 06 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-494,90-494 |
| Citation | 569 So.2d 838 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2714 Pedro J. DURAND, Appellant, v. Angela W. DURAND, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pedro J. Durand, in pro. per.
John R. Sutton and Teddy L. Montoto, Miami, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
The former husband, Pedro Durand, appeals an adverse final judgment in favor of his former wife, Angela Durand. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The former wife brought an action in which she requested, among other things, child support for two minor children born of the marriage, certain relief with respect to Miami, Florida, real estate owned jointly by the parties, and other equitable relief. The husband, an attorney, filed what he denominated a special appearance contesting in personam jurisdiction. His principal contention on this appeal is that the action should have been dismissed on that basis. We disagree.
On this record it appears that there were at least two bases for the assertion of long-arm jurisdiction over the husband. First, the parties owned real estate located in Miami, Florida and the suit sought relief with respect to that property. Jurisdiction thus existed based on paragraph 48.193(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989).
Second, the wife sought child support for two minor children born of the marriage. The husband contends that paragraph 48.193(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989) was unavailable to the wife as a jurisdictional basis because, according to the husband, he did not reside in Florida immediately prior to the commencement of the instant action. While the wife disputed the husband's factual assertions on this point, the husband's position is without merit even if the husband's factual position is taken as true. See generally Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502-03 (Fla.1989).
Accepting the husband's version of the facts as true, the parties and their five children resided in Miami for several years beginning in the late 1970's. According to the husband, he and the wife separated during that period of time. The husband contends that he changed his residence to the State of Virginia in 1983. The wife and children at all times continued to reside in Miami, in a home jointly owned by the husband and wife.
The husband contends that the second clause of paragraph 48.193(1)(e) is available to the wife only if he resided in Florida immediately prior to the filing of the action. Since the husband contends that he had officially changed his residence several years prior to the filing of the instant action, he argues that this portion of the long-arm statute was unavailable to the wife. That is incorrect.
This court has held that for purposes of this subsection, "the defendant's residency in this state must proximately proceed the commencement of an action." Shammay v. Shammay, 491 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (citations omitted). The Shammay opinion goes on to say, however, that "[p]roximity is to be determined in light of the totality of the circumstances." Id. While by the husband's account, he had resided elsewhere for several years prior to the commencement of the action, it is also true that the wife and minor children continue to reside in this jurisdiction, in a residence jointly owned by the parties. It also appears on this record that the husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heineken v. Heineken
...within the state sufficient to subject appellant to long-arm jurisdiction under section 48.193(2). Compare, Durand v. Durand, 569 So.2d 838, 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So.2d 1034 We recognize that the limitations on long-arm jurisdiction, represented by this case, Garrett, and......
-
Garrett v. Garrett
...154, 158 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 342-43, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)).3 See, e.g., Durand v. Durand, 569 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) review denied, 583 So.2d 1034 (Fla.1991); Binger v. Binger, 555 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) review denied, 560 So.2d 232 ...
-
Garrett v. Garrett
...determination, but must be "determined in light of the totality of the circumstances." Shammay, supra at 285. In Durand v. Durand, 569 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So.2d 1034 (Fla.1991), the court found long arm jurisdiction over the husband who had not resided in the stat......
-
Bofonchik v. Smith, 92-4223
...the trial court lacked jurisdiction. In contrast to the facts in Shammay, the necessary proximity was found to exist in Durand v. Durand, 569 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 583 So.2d 1034 (Fla.1991). There, the husband and wife and their five children lived in a jointly owned ......
-
Jurisdiction and venue
...of the parties, their property and the family. [ Bofonochik v. Smith, 622 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Durand v. Durand, 569 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).] When a married couple residing in Florida moves to another state, one spouse, after separation, may not subsequently return to Flo......
-
Long-arm jurisdiction in support and divorce actions: the unwary beware.
...and compare Garrett v. Garrett, 668 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1996); Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, 615 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1993); Durand v. Durand, 569 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1990); Shammay v. Shammay, 491 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1986); Pasquini v. Pasquini, 2 FLA. L. WEEKLY SUPP. 255 (Fla. 1......