Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

967 So. 2d 1087

Docket No. 1D07-3692.

Brulte v. Brulte

Mark Thomas BRULTE, husband, Appellant, v. Suzanne Mitchell BRULTE, wife, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 13, 2007.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2007-11-13

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2019

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[c]oncluding that the order on appeal does not fall into any of the categories of appealable orders identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 272 So. 3d 1291 - Pierrelouis v. Pierrelouis, Pierrelouis v. Pierrelouis

Relies on 827 So. 2d 1096 - Fisher v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-11-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1088 Beth M. Terry, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

¶2J. Demere Mason, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The appellant filed this appeal seeking review of a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss filed below, which had challenged the trial court's jurisdiction over the case. The appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because the order on appeal dealt with subject matter jurisdiction and is not an immediately appealable order. Concluding that the order on appeal does not fall into any of the categories of appealable orders identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, the appellee's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

¶5In the order on appeal, the trial court found that the wife met the residency requirements for filing a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in Florida, and also that the court had jurisdiction over the parties' two children pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"), sections 61.501 through 61.542, Florida Statutes. The UCCJEA does not require personal jurisdiction over a party to make a child custody determination. See § 61.514(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). Because the appellant's motion to dismiss did not raise a challenge to the trial court's in personam jurisdiction, the order on appeal did not determine the jurisdiction of the person as that term is used in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). See Fisher v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n,827 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Further, although this order set the stage for a custody determination in the future, it is not appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), because it did not make a determination as to child custody.

¶6KAHN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

/967/so2d/1087 · .json · Public domain