5D04-3046 Carr v. Sharkey

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2005 » 5D04-3046 Carr v. Sharkey

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D04-3046

Case Date: 08/22/2005

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005 STEVEN R. CARR, Appellant, v. DENISE M. SHARKEY, F/K/A DENISE M. CARR, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 26, 2005 Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, John V. Doyle, Judge. Michael C. Huddleston and Marguerite Mogul of Huddleston & Teal, P.A., Deland, for Appellant. Lawrence A. Welch of James & Zimmerman, P.L., Deland, for Appellee. PALMER, J. Steven Carr appeals the trial court's non-final order denying his motion to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Concluding that the record provided by Carr is insufficient to support a reversal, we affirm. Steven Carr and Denise M. Sharkey were divorced in New York. The parties have one minor child who is subject to the final judgment of dissolution. A consent order of support was entered by the family court of the state of New York. In the order, the parties agreed that Carr would pay Sharkey child support in a set amount and that in no event would the child support increase above that amount. The order recognized that the amount agreed to by the parties deviated from New York's Child Support Standards Case No. 5D04-3046

Act for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Carr agreed to pay the child's college and other expenses, and that he would have increased costs associated with visiting the child since Sharkey was relocating to Florida. After moving to Florida, Sharkey filed a petition to domesticate the New York judgment. Carr answered and consented to the domestication of the order. Thereafter, Sharkey filed a supplemental petition in Florida seeking modification of Carr's child support obligation. Specifically, the motion requested that the amount of Carr's child support be increased to reflect Florida's statutory guidelines. Carr filed a motion to dismiss the petition and to quash service of process claiming, among other things, that Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was a resident of Massachusetts and had never been a resident of Florida. He further alleged that he did not have any ties or contacts with Florida. The trial court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss finding that Florida had personal jurisdiction over Carr under section 88.2011(5) of the Florida Statutes because he had agreed to the entry of an order in New York which permitted the mother and the minor child to relocate to Florida. The trial court further found that the oral stipulation of the parties which provided for a non-modifiable bi-weekly child support amount was unenforceable as being contrary to the public policy of Florida. This appeal timely followed.1 The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Chapter 88, Florida Statutes (2003), is the vehicle for Florida courts to establish jurisdiction over certain nonresidents. Section 88.2011 lists eight bases for jurisdiction over nonresidents, all of

1

Appellate jurisdiction is authorized by rule 9.130(a)(3)(c)(1). 2

which require some connection with this state, unless the individual voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts. Specifically, section 88.2011(5) of the Florida Statutes provides: 88.2011. Bases for jurisdiction over nonresident In a proceeding to establish, enforce, or modify a support order or to determine parentage, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the individual's guardian or conservator if: *** (5) The child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual . . . .

Download 5D04-3046 Carr v. Sharkey.pdf