Perez v. Perez, 87-1203
| Decision Date | 09 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1203,87-1203 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 386 Rafael PEREZ, Appellant, v. Elizabeth PEREZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Karlan & Gerson and Charlotte Karlan, Miami, for appellant.
Mark Friedman, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
The judgment of dissolution entered after hearing following the entry of a default is reversed in its entirety for numerous reasons, of which the most prominent are (a) the failure of the complaint to allege that either party was a resident of Florida for the statutory period deprived the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cause, Beekman v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 So. 923 (1907); Gredler v. Gredler, 36 Fla. 372, 18 So. 762 (1895); (b) the appellant husband's failure to receive notice of the hearing deprived him of the basic requirements of due process, Buffington v. Torcise, 504 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Heritage Casket & Vault Ind., Inc. v. Sunshine Bank, 428 So.2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957); Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Matthews v. Matthews, 376 So.2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); (c) that portion of the judgment granting "custody" of the parties' child was plainly erroneous both because the complaint did not comply with section 61.1308 or 61.132, Florida Statutes (1985), and because the relief granted was not sought in the complaint and therefore could not be awarded in a proceeding by default, Hernandez v. Hernandez, 444 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984); see also Williams v. Williams, 227 So.2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); and (d) the award of the husband's interest in the marital home to the wife was similarly not supported by any such demand in the complaint.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaddick v. Monopoli
...not vest a court with child-custody, subject-matter jurisdiction. See Walt v. Walt, 574 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Perez v. Perez, 519 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Mouzon v. Mouzon, 458 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA Further, the custody petition filed by Monopoli frames no possible basis fo......
-
Interest of L.W., In re
...the court cannot exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the act. See, Walt v. Walt, 574 So.2d 205 (Fla.App.1991); Perez v. Perez, 519 So.2d 1104 (Fla.App.1988); Mouzon v. Mouzon, 458 So.2d 381 (Fla.App.1984); Pasqualone v. Pasqualone, 63 Ohio St.2d 96, 406 N.E.2d 1121 (1980). However, th......
-
Orbe v. Orbe
...is met (six months residency of that spouse in Florida prior to filing the petition). Sec. 61.021, Fla.Stat. (1993); Perez v. Perez, 519 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Arnstein v. Arnstein, 422 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Bowers v. Bowers, 287 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). This is know......
-
Strommen v. Strommen
...2d DCA 2004); Kochinsky v. Moore, 698 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Walt v. Walt, 574 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Perez v. Perez, 519 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); and Mouzon v. Mouzon, 458 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA In 1995, the Hillsborough County Circuit Court entered a final judgment ......