Norris v. Norris, 90-3332
| Decision Date | 13 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-3332,90-3332 |
| Citation | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 473,573 So.2d 1085 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 473 Charles H. NORRIS, Petitioner, v. Diana S. NORRIS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kenneth G. Spillias of Shapiro & Bregman, P.A., and Robert M.W. Shalhoub of Houston & Shalhoub, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Ronald Sales of Law Office of Ronald Sales, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari an order of the trial court denying a motion to stay dissolution proceedings filed in Florida because of a prior pending proceeding in Pennsylvania. Both the Pennsylvania court and the Florida court had determined that their courts, respectively, had subject matter jurisdiction as well as personal jurisdiction over each party. In Siegel v. Siegel, 575 So.2d 1267 (Fla.1991) the Florida Supreme Court approved this court's reasoning in Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) which as a matter of comity applied the "principle of priority" to cases pending in two sovereign jurisdictions. The Bedingfield court announced the rule that a court may stay a proceeding before it on the grounds that a prior filed case involving the same parties and issues is pending in the courts of another state. The supreme court in Siegel qualified this rule by stating:
This does not mean that a trial court must always stay proceedings when the prior proceedings involving the same issues and parties are pending before a court in another state but only that ordinarily this should be the result. 'There may well be circumstances under which the denial of a stay could be justified upon a showing of the prospects for undue delay in the disposition of a prior action.' Schwartz v. DeLoach, 453 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). There may be additional factors or circumstances which would also warrant a denial of stay by the trial court.
575 So.2d at 1272 (). The supreme court's decision quashed the trial court's order denying a motion to stay the Florida dissolution proceedings in Siegel.
We find Siegel and Bedingfield to be controlling in this case and that the principle of priority applies. While Siegel suggests some situations such as delay in proceedings which may prevent application of the rule, the respondent has not shown that undue delay of proceedings would occur in Pennsylvania nor any other circumstance which case law supports as a ground for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vicario v. Blanch
...pending in a state court and a foreign court. Maraj v. Maraj, 642 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (citing Norris v. Norris, 573 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ; Reuther v. Reuther, 524 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1988) ; Robinson v. Royal Bank of Can......
-
In re Guardianship of Morrison
...circumstances, a trial court abuses its discretion in refusing to grant a stay based on the principle of priority. Norris v. Norris, 573 So.2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The most common example of such special circumstances is undue delay by the court with priority. See Siegel, 575 So.......
-
Maraj v. Maraj, 94-0954
...Florida courts will acknowledge priority in favor of foreign courts first exercising concurrent jurisdiction. E.g. Norris v. Norris, 573 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Reuther v. Reuther, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So.2d 401 (Fla.1988); Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada......
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 93-02272
...of Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982, petition for review dismissed, 427 So.2d 736 (Fla.1983; Norris v. Norris, 573 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991. The principle, which technically applies only to matters among courts within the same sovereignty, provides that the ......
-
Jurisdiction and venue
...the petition for dissolution of marriage or (2) in the answer to the petition. [Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.110, 12.140; Norris v. Norris, 573 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (improper for Florida court to deny motion to stay dissolution of marriage proceedings in Florida where prior proceeding i......
-
Pleadings and mandatory electronic filing
...action in Florida, not a motion to dismiss which is not a proper vehicle for raising the defense of abatement. [ Norris v. Norris, 573 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (improper for Florida court to deny motion to stay dissolution of marriage proceedings in Florida where prior proceeding is ......