Sammons v. Sammons, s. 85-234
Decision Date | 03 December 1985 |
Docket Number | 84-2654,Nos. 85-234,s. 85-234 |
Citation | 479 So.2d 223,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2659 |
Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2659 Willis Dexter SAMMONS, Appellant, v. Julia Sullivan SAMMONS, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory Horton, Miami, for appellant.
Harold Peter Barkas, Prunty & Olsen, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.
The appellee, Julia Sammons, was the plaintiff below in an action seeking, among other things, to enforce against her ex-husband, Willis, the following portions of a Colorado decree which dissolved their marriage:
THE COURT finds that as of this time, there are four pieces of real estate owned by the parties: ... a house in Miami, Florida; two adjoining warehouse buildings in Miami, Florida, and a lot in Florida City, Florida, all of which is Marital Property.
* * *
* * *
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the four parcels of real estate, ... the Miami house, the Miami warehouse buildings and the Florida City lot be marketed and sold.... In each instance, the broker shall be designated by mutual agreement between the parties and their counsel, and the cash sales price shall be as agreed or as ordered by the Court. At the time of sale, all expenses of sale shall first be paid out of the proceeds, and the remaining balances from such real and personal property so sold shall be equally divided between the parties.
At the commencement of the litigation, the trial court entered an injunctive order restraining the disposition of the property in question, from which Sammons took an authorized non-final appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). Prior to the disposition of that appeal, the trial court, over Sammons' procedural and substantive objections, entered final judgment against him which afforded full faith and credit to the Colorado decree and thus required the Florida realty to be disposed of in accordance with its terms. On Sammons' plenary appeal, we reverse the judgment 1 for two separate reasons.
1. It is clear that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to enter a final judgment while the non-final appeal was pending in this court. 2 Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(f) (); Darden v. Police & Fire Civil Service Board, 423 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Carter v. Dorman, 385 So.2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
2. On the merits, the Colorado decree was not entitled to full faith and credit and its consequent enforcement because it constituted an in rem judgment, directly affecting the title to realty in another state, and was to that extent therefore entered without jurisdiction. Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65 (1909); Overly v. Overly, 66 So.2d 706, 707 (Fla.1953); see Blackmon v. Blackmon, 466 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) ( ); In re Marriage of Miller, 108 Ill.App.3d 63, 63 Ill.Dec. 797, 438 N.E.2d 939, 942 (1982) ( ). While Ms. Sammons invokes the concomitant principle that a court may in directly affect extra-territorial realty by an in personam order, requiring a conveyance or the like, against a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, see Parra v. Parra, 362 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this rule does not apply here. The Colorado court did not even purport to order either party to take any individual action concerning his or her interest in the Florida property. See Parra; McRary v. McRary, 228 N.C. 714, 47 S.E.2d 27 (1948). Compare, e.g., Varone v. Varone, 359 F.2d 769, 771 (7th Cir.1966); Rozan v. Rozan, 49 Cal.2d 322, 317 P.2d 11 (1957). It simply required a forced sale of the property and an equal distribution of the proceeds; it was, in other words, neither more nor less than an order for partition of the property. O'Hara v. O'Hara, 327 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); see Bell v. Bell, 112 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). A partition judgment is unquestionably in rem. Miller v. Griffen, 99 Fla. 976, 128 So. 416, 419 (1930); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Advance Petroleum, Inc.
...v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65 (1909); accord Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So.2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); General Motors Corp. v. State, 357 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 712 (Fla.1978); Belsky v. Belsky, 3......
-
Trust v. Hirchert
...order directing one litigant to convey title to another would be entitled to full faith and credit (citing Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So.2d 223, 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Gardiner )); Dusesoi v. Dusesoi, 498 So.2d 1348, 1350 (Fla. 2d. DCA 1986) (holding that a decree from a foreign state purport......
-
Spiwak v. General Real Estate Ltd.
...920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Jefferson Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. The Greenman Group, Inc., 531 So.2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So.2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Engineered Storage Sys. Inc. v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), save one, namely......
-
De La Guardia v. De La Guardia, 87-2950
...344 So.2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Villa v. Mumac Construction Corp., 334 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); compare Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So.2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The wife cross-appeals urging error in the award of certain fees to the special master, fees to the husband's prior attorneys ......
-
§ 13.01 Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
...of Mack, 11 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1561 (Iowa 1985). Louisiana: Fagone v. Fagone, 508 So.2d 644 (La. App. 1987). But see, Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So.2d 223 (Fla. App. 1985).[42] Smith v. Smith, 167 Idaho 568, 473 P.3d 837 (2020).[43] See: Kentucky: Cox v. Cox, 170 S.W.3d 389 (Ky. 2005); Tenness......