¶1The narrow issue presented in this case is whether the appellant’s status as a resident of India precluded her from bringing a separate maintenance action against her husband, a Florida resident, for child support pursuant to section 61.09, Florida Statutes. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, it did not. See Howell v. Howell, 545 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Wachsmuth v. Wachsmuth, 528 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Weinschel v. Weinschel, 368 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Martin v. Martin, 128 So.2d 386 (Fla.1961); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 125 So.2d 553 (Fla.1960); Kiplinger v. Kiplinger, 147 Fla. 243, 2 So.2d 870 (1941). The order under review is accordingly reversed.
912 So. 2d 57
Bocarro v. Pinto
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided September 13, 2005
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2005-09-13
Relies on Kiplinger v. Kiplinger · Champion v. Cochran · Lowell Dunn Co. v. Signal Engineering Co.
Decided 2005-09-13