Schraner v. Schraner (Emerson), B-43
| Decision Date | 31 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. B-43,B-43 |
| Citation | 110 So.2d 33 |
| Parties | John SCHRANER, Appellant, v. Betty SCHRANER (EMERSON), Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Earl R. Duncan, Panama City, for appellant.
W. Fred Turner, Panama City, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the chancellor modifying the visitation and custody provisions of a final decree of divorce dated June 8, 1957. Plaintiff wife, a resident of Florida, was granted a divorce from defendant husband, now residing in Indiana, and awarded custody of and support for their minor child. The husband was allowed the right of visitation and granted the privilege of having temporary custody of the child for stated periods of time under specified conditions provided for in the decree.
On September 2, 1958, the wife filed a petition alleging that the husband had failed to comply with the provisions of the final decree, and had violated the conditions of the decree under which he had been granted temporary custody of the minor child. The wife prayed for modification of the final decree by withdrawing the husband's right of visitation and temporary custody.
A copy of the petition and notice of hearing were mailed to defendant at his residence in Indiana. Pursuant to this notice, he specially appeared by counsel and questioned the lower court's jurisdiction to consider the petition on the ground that he had not been properly served with process as required by law. This objection was overruled whereupon the husband's counsel withdrew from the hearing and refused to further participate therein. Upon the basis of testimony offered by the wife, the chancellor entered his order modifying the final decree by deleting therefrom the provisions granting visitation rights to the husband until further order of the court.
It is appellant's contention that the petition for modification was filed pursuant to the statute granting to circuit courts the right to entertain petitions for modification of divorce decrees and to make such orders and judgments as justice and equity shall require. 1 Appellant asserts that inasmuch as the final decree of divorce contained no provision by which the court retained jurisdiction of the cause, the petition for modification was, in effect, a new cause of action. Therefore, it is contended, the plaintiff wife could proceed only after service of process had been effected on defendant in the manner prescribed by law. In essence, appellant takes the position that the notice served on him by mail at his residence in Indiana was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction to enter the order of modification.
Our Supreme Court has held that a final decree of divorce closes the suit and if jurisdiction is not retained by the court, the final decree becomes absolute. In such instances, the filing of a petition for modification is the commencement of a new suit and under the provisions of F.S. § 65.15, F.S.A., one filing such a petition may only proceed with the cause after service of process on the respondent, or after his voluntary appearance. 2
It has been recognized, however, that if provision is made in the final decree of divorce whereby the court retains jurisdiction of the cause, a petition for modification of the decree is considered but a supplemental step in the proceedings, and the court may proceed to hear and determine such a petition if respondent has actual though informal notice of the proceeding. Under such circumstances, formal service of process in the manner provided by the statute is not necessary. 3
We cannot agree that the petition for modification considered in this case was filed pursuant to the provisions of § 65.15. That statute deals only with the modification of the provisions of a final decree of divorce relating to separate support, maintenance or alimony, and does not apply to the terms of a decree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohmes v. Ohmes
...decree sought to be modified. Kosch v. Kosch, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 547; Fowler v. Fowler, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 411; Schraner v. Schraner, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 33. It is elementary in Florida law that the provisions of all Florida statutes touching upon the subject matter enter into and......
-
Frye v. Frye
...to modify its custody orders at any time prior to the child's majority. Bohn v. Rhoades, Fla.1960, 121 So.2d 777; Schraner v. Schraner, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 33. This continuing jurisdiction to modify its own decree is generally considered exclusive to the divorce court. 27B C.J.S. Divorc......
-
Williams v. Starnes
...to an interstate custody dispute where the issue involved was whether there had been proper service of process in Schraner v. Schraner, 110 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). In Schraner, the parties were divorced in Florida, and the wife was awarded custody of the child. The husband moved to Il......
-
Adoption of Ellis, In re
...Revised Volume 2, section 15.35; 27B, C.J.S. Divorce § 317(1); 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, section 812; Schraner v. Schraner, (Fla.App. 1959) 110 So.2d 33, 36; State ex rel. Kleffman v. Bartholomew Circuit Court, 245 Ind. 539, 200 N.E.2d 878, An exception to this rule exists in th......