Lahr v. Lahr
| Decision Date | 29 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--425,76--425 |
| Citation | 337 So.2d 837 |
| Parties | Patricia Carol LAHR, Appellant, v. Larry O. LAHR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jonathan H. Hancock of Hancock & Ables, Sebring, for appellant.
Marie Alice Crano, Lake Wales, for appellee.
Appellee/petition brought suit against
Appellee/petitioner brought suit against of marriage, custody of the two minor children, and a distribution of real and personal property. According to the parties' briefs, 1 process was served on the nonresident appellant by publication. A default was entered by the clerk of the circuit court against appellant for her failure to serve or file responsive pleadings. After the entry of the default, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that appellee had not been a resident of Florida for six months prior to filing his petition.
The motion to dismiss was returned to appellant pursuant to RCP 1.500(c). However, a hearing was subsequently held on said motion which, according to the parties' briefs, 2 was treated by the court as a motion to set aside the default. The motion was denied. Following a hearing on the petition for dissolution the circuit court entered a final judgment which dissolved the marriage, granted custody of the two minor children of the parties to appellee, and awarded the marital home, furnishings and an automobile to appellee. Appellant filed this timely appeal from that judgment.
Appellant contended that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. The record on appeal in this case does not contain the transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. It is a basic principle of appellate review that appellant has the burden of showing error in the trial court proceedings. We, therefore, presume that the trial court's denial of the motion was correct and hold that no error was committed.
Appellant further contended that the trial court erred in awarding the real and personal property to appellee. We agree and hold that while the court did have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage and to award custody of the children, it did not have jurisdiction over the property. The dissolution proceedings are in the nature of a Quasi in rem action. The court did not have personal jurisdiction over appellant because she was a nonresident served by constructive process and did not have jurisdiction over the property because neither the notice of the action nor the complaint contained a description of the property. Section 49.08(4) of the Florida Statutes requires that the notice of publication describe the realty which is the subject matter of the action. Florida Jai Alai, Inc. v. Lake Howell Water & Reclamation District, Fla.1973, 274 So.2d 522; Torchiana v. Torchiana, Fla.App.2d 1959, 111 So.2d 103.
This court held in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Dieujuste
...to adjudicate the property rights of the parties. See, e.g., Wright v. Wright, 411 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Lahr v. Lahr, 337 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Nethery v. Nethery, 212 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); Hennig v. Hennig, 162 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So.2d 754......
-
Gelkop v. Gelkop
...final judgment as the husband was properly served by constructive process in the original marriage dissolution action. Lahr v. Lahr, 337 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); § 49.011(4), Fla.Stat. (1979). Indeed, the husband concedes this issue both in his brief and on oral argument in this cause.......
-
McCabe v. McCabe
...1980); Palmer v. Palmer, 353 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Callaghan v. Callaghan, 337 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Lahr v. Lahr, 337 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976).4 We have also considered the provisions of section 47.081 of the Florida Statutes (1991). This section provides that any p......
-
Matusow v. Matusow, 85-1683
...is incumbent on an appellant to make error appear. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1980); Lahr v. Lahr, 337 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Storer v. Storer, 305 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). We fail to find, from the limited record before us, that the trial judg......