Ward v. Wells, W--249
| Decision Date | 19 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. W--249,W--249 |
| Citation | 298 So.2d 493 |
| Parties | Phyllis C. McLeod WARD, Petitioner, v. Honorable Clyde B. WELLS, Circuit Judge of the First Judicial Circuit In and For Walton County, Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Mayes, Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, P.A., Pensacola, for petitioner.
E. Allan Ramey, De Funiak Springs, for George A. McLeod.
George A. McLeod, petitioner below, filed in the Circuit Court of Walton County, Florida, a petition for modification of the child custody and child visitation rights provided for in a final judgment of divorce previously entered by the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Florida. Phyllis C. McLeod Ward, respondent below, (petitioner here) filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the jurisdiction over such modification is in the Circuit Court of Escambia County by virtue of the previous final judgment entered by that court and that the Circuit Court of Walton County is without jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was denied and the petition for modification was set for hearing. Suggestion for writ of prohibition was filed in this court, and we issued rule nisi.
We have considered the brief of petitioner, the return and brief of respondent and the oral arguments of the attorneys for the respective parties. Under the law as pronounced by this court in Jones v. State ex rel. Greathouse, Fla.App. (1st) 241 So.2d 432, the Circuit Court of Walton County is without jurisdiction to modify the final judgment of the Circuit Court of Escambia County as to child custody and visitation. See also Poliak v. Poliak, Fla.App. (2d) 235 So.2d 512, and Haley v. Edwards, Fla.App. (4th) 233 So.2d 647.
By this ruling, we do not mean to infer that the circuit court of any county in which a child may be located would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of dependency and delinquency under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes.
Rule absolute in prohibition be and it is hereby issued.
It has been said that it is more important that the law be certain than just. It is only in the interest of certainty that I concur with the result reached here. The several cases by eminent jurists writing for the several District Courts of Appeal cited in the opinion by my colleagues do appear to sustain the conclusion reached on the basis stated in the opinion. However, I do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Starnes
...Rhoades v. Bohn, 114 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), aff'd, 121 So.2d 777 (Fla.1960). But see Wells v. Ward, 298 So.2d 493, 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (Boyer, J., specially concurring) (proper forum in which to determine child custody in intrastate disputes should be decided on basis of venue s......
-
Hegler v. Hegler
...2d DCA 1980) (Case No. 78-1906. Opinion filed March 26, 1980); Elliott v. Weyman, 337 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Ward v. Wells, 298 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). "Decrees pertaining to the welfare of the children are, in a sense, interlocutory and because of this they may be modified, ......
-
Elliott v. Weyman, AA--116
...remained in the Circuit Court of Broward County. Jones v. State ex rel. Greathouse, 241 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1 DCA 1970); Ward v. Wells, 298 So.2d 493 (Fla.1 DCA 1974); Wells, In and For Walton County v. Ward, 314 So.2d 138 (Fla.1975). The court below did not err in dismissing Count 2. Section 6......