Little v. Little, 91-03273
| Decision Date | 20 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-03273,91-03273 |
| Citation | 616 So.2d 1179 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1044 William C. LITTLE, Appellant, v. Beverly D. LITTLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William C. Little, pro se.
No appearance by appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment of dissolution. Appellant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in dissolving the marriage when there was a pending motion in the Baker County Circuit Court; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to rule on his motion to appear at the final hearing.
On January 24, 1991, Beverly Little filed a petition for dissolution of marriage (Nassau County petition), alleging that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The wife asserted that the parties did not accumulate any marital assets or debts.
On February 22, 1991, William Little, a prisoner, filed an answer to the petition, asserting that the wife's petition was void because he had previously filed a petition for dissolution in the Baker County Circuit Court (Baker County petition). Additionally, the husband asserted that the parties had incurred marital debts. The husband attached a copy of the Baker County petition to the answer. Although the Baker County petition is notarized, there is no stamp indicating that it has been filed in the Baker County Circuit Court.
On April 29, 1991, the wife filed a motion to strike all statements in the husband's answer dealing with the alleged Baker County petition. The wife asserted that "no action involving the parties or their marriage has been filed in Baker County, nor is an action between the parties pending in Baker County at this time."
On May 7, 1991, the husband filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, requesting that he be present at the nonjury trial on the petition for dissolution. On May 13, 1991, the trial court summarily denied the husband's petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. On May 28, 1991, the Nassau County Circuit Court dissolved the parties' marriage.
In Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the "mailbox rule" for pro se petitioners who are incarcerated. Under the mailbox rule, a petition filed by a pro se inmate is deemed filed at the moment in time when the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing to agents of the State. However, the mailbox rule cannot, without notice, invoke the jurisdiction of one court while divesting another court of jurisdiction....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Taylor v. Dorsey
...its discretion by not considering the above factors before refusing an inmate's request to be present); see generally Little v. Little, 616 So.2d 1179 (Fla.App.1993) (dissolution action, remanding where the court was unable to determine whether above factors considered because there was no ......
-
State ex rel. Kittrell v. Carr
...economy, convenience and security. See Strube, 764 P.2d at 734; Stone v. Morris, 546 F.2d 730, 735-36 (7th Cir.1976); Little v. Little, 616 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla.App.1993); Nichols v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 621, 623 Our reading of these cases and others indicates that the key factor in determin......
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 1D07-5377.
...inmate's deposition pursuant to the various methods afforded by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure."); see also Little v. Little, 616 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (reversing final judgment of dissolution because appellate court could not determine whether trial court had considere......
-
Hett v. Madison Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 92-03788
...the inmate turns the document over to agents of the state for processing. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992); Little v. Little, 616 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In cases as such this, it is necessary for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the complain......