Poliak v. Poliak, s. 69--545
| Decision Date | 29 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | 70--116,Nos. 69--545,s. 69--545 |
| Citation | 235 So.2d 512 |
| Parties | Ann POLIAK, Appellant, v. Claude POLIAK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles F. Clark and Charles W. Pittman, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.
Arnold D. Levine, of Levine & Freedman, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
The appellant takes this interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court denying her motion to dismiss appellee's petition to modify his visitation privileges with their two minor children. Appellant's motion to dismiss was based on the ground that the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellant and the minor children and also lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter by virtue of a stipulation and property settlement agreement entered into between the appellant and appellee. The parties were initially before the Probate Court for Hampden County, Massachusetts, which court in a decree for separate support granted custody of the two minor children to the appellant with visitation rights to the appellee. Subsequently, the appellant and appellee were granted a final decree of divorce by the Circuit Court in and for Monroe County, Florida. The final decree of the Monroe County Circuit Court provided in part as follows:
The property settlement agreement referred to in the final decree of the Monroe County Circuit Court provided in part as follows:
'IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties to this agreement that the 'Husband' will have the rights of visitation with the children to this marriage, and the same privileges as the Decree entered in Hampden County, Massachusetts Probate Court of Springfield, and there will be no modification of this clause until the children have reached the age of fourteen (14) years.'
'(a) Regarding any enforcement of the provisions of this agreement and relative to this cause of action and to the enforcement of the Final Judgment rendered herein, if any, will be brought in Hillsborough County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida, is hereby petitioned to, and it is stipulated that this cause be transferred to the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, the first Court in the State of Florida to obtain jurisdiction of the parties hereto and by virtue of the former Orders of that Court and which Court retains jurisdiction for the purposes hereof.
'(b) That any Petitions for Modification of this Agreement must be, as a condition precedent thereto, brought in the Probate Court in and for Hampden County, Massachusetts, and the decisions of said Court will bind both parties.'
After the entry of the final decree, the appellant brought an action in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to enforce certain provisions of the final decree. This action was brought in Hillsborough County, Florida, in accordance with the property settlement agreement. However, it also appears from the record that the appellee at the time of the institution of that action was a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida. The record reveals that the appellee appeared in that action and that no opposition was raised to the jurisdiction of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The Hillsborough County Circuit Court entered an order in appellant's action favorable to her which held that the appellee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Starnes
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1981). In Marshall, this court, relying on Wells, Bailey v. Malone, 389 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); and Poliak v. Poliak, 235 So.2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), held that the circuit court which had original jurisdiction over the dissolution proceedings had the only authority to ......
-
Strommen v. Strommen
...in which the original award of custody was entered have jurisdiction to modify an award of child custody." See also Poliak v. Poliak, 235 So.2d 512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (holding the law of Florida "is well settled" that a circuit court retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify ......
-
Hardman v. Koslowski, 1D13–1883.
...Fla. Stat. (2004). The trial court could not exercise that jurisdiction once Alexander reached majority. See Poliak v. Poliak, 235 So.2d 512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (holding the law of Florida “is well settled” that a circuit court retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify its cus......
-
Cisneros v. Guinand
...orders, which would include visitation privileges, until such time as the minor children reach their majority." Poliak v. Poliak, 235 So. 2d 512, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Correspondingly, section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, authorizes the modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing upo......