Sikes v. Sikes, S--300
| Decision Date | 11 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. S--300,S--300 |
| Citation | 286 So.2d 210 |
| Parties | Lyla Madolin SIKES, Appellant, v. Douglas Ray SIKES, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
The decision of this court in this cause rendered by opinion filed November 20, 1973, reversing the post-judgment order appealed herein is hereby withdrawn, set aside, and held for naught.
Appellant, who was respondent in the trial court, seeks review of a post-judgment order modifying that provision of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage requiring appellee-petitioner to make monthly child support payments to appellant-wife for the benefit of their minor child. By the post-judgment order appealed herein, the amount of child support payments required of appellee in the future was reduced from $150.00 per month to the sum of $100.00 per month for and during the period of time specified in the order. By this appeal, appellant charges that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the petition because of a lack of jurisdiction over her person, and for improper venue.
The judgment of dissolution of marriage involved in this case was rendered by July 11, 1972, in an action commenced and concluded in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County, Florida. The petition to modify the child support provisions of the final judgment of dissolution was filed by appellee in the Circuit Court of Duval County some three months later on October 4, 1972. No motion was made to transfer the cause to the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County pursuant to Rule 1.060, Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Appellant appeared at the hearing held before the court on appellee's petition for modification and was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceeding. She filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that Duval County was an improper venue since the final judgment sought to be modified was rendered by the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County. Appellant also filed a motion to dismiss the petition for modification on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over her person in that she had not been properly served by summons as provided by the statutes and laws of this state. The trial court denied both motions filed by appellant and proceeded to take testimony on the issue of child support raised by the petition for modification. It is the order of modification rendered pursuant to that proceeding which appellant seeks to have reviewed herein.
By her second point on appeal, appellant reasserts her position that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the petition for modification on the ground of improper venue. It is her position that since the final judgment awarding child support was rendered by the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County, that court retained jurisdiction of that part of the judgment relating to child support payments 1 and had exclusive jurisdiction over any proceedings initiated for the purpose of modifying that aspect of the final judgment. 2 Such contention regarding the exclusivity of the court of original jurisdiction loses its force in the fact of F.S., Section 61.14, F.S.A., which provides, inter alia, that when any party is required by court order to make any payments, and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed since the rendition of the order, either party may apply to the circuit court of the circuit in which the parties, or either of them, reside at the date of the application. It is undisputed that appellee was residing in Duval County at the time he filed his application for modification in the circuit court of that county. Although it may be argued that this statute was intended to apply only to petitions for modification of final judgments or orders relating to support, maintenance, or alimony for the wife, we think that it is broad enough to include also support payments for the dependent children of the parties. This being the case, Duval County was a proper venue under the statute in which appellee was privileged to make his application for modification, and the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion based upon this ground.
Conceding venue of the action to have been proper, we next turn to the question of whether the court erred in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the petition because of a lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyles v. Boyles
...defendant's attorneys and to defendant; defendant's copy of motion returned marked "refused" but signed by defendant); Sikes v. Sikes, 286 So.2d 210 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973) (notice adequate where notice of proceeding given to defendant by mail; defendant was represented by her attorney at th......
-
Powell v. Smith, 86-1240
...So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), notice, Gilbert v. Gilbert, 472 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Kranis v. Kranis, supra; Sikes v. Sikes, 286 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), or evidence of waiver or laches, Burley v. Burley, 438 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Diaz v. Diaz, 418 So.2d 1064 (Fla. ......
-
Lewis v. Lewis
...be brought in the county where either party resides, even though the original decree was entered in a different county. Sikes v. Sikes, 286 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Where a petition seeks modification of both custody and support, however, the circuit court which entered the original j......
-
Washington v. Washington, 92-1203
...(then being sought to be modified) was entered and because it was the county of the former husband's residence. Sikes v. Sikes, 286 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Baker County would also have been a proper venue because it was the former wife's residence at the time the petition to modify w......