Hollowell v. Tamburro
991 So. 2d 1022, 2008 WL 4489271 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-resident parent's participation in a child custody proceeding under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) does not constitute a waiver of that parent's objection to the court's personal jurisdiction over them for financial matters, such as child support.
Facts:
- Roger Richard Hollowell (the father) has lived and worked in Aspen, Colorado for 32 years.
- Hollowell and Kristen Jennifer Tamburro (the mother) had three children together but were never married.
- The mother and the two older children, who had primarily lived in Colorado, moved to Florida in May 2007.
- The couple's youngest child was born on August 24, 2007.
- Hollowell has never resided in Florida, never owned real estate in Florida, and the mother's petition did not allege that any of the children were conceived in Florida.
Procedural Posture:
- The father filed a petition in a Colorado court to determine parental responsibilities.
- The Colorado court dismissed the father's petition, ruling that Florida was the children's home state under the UCCJEA.
- The mother filed a petition in a Florida circuit court (trial court) to determine paternity, child support, parental responsibility, and attorney's fees.
- The father was served with the petition in Colorado.
- The father filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the financial claims.
- The father also filed a motion for temporary custody and visitation.
- The Florida circuit court denied the father's motion to dismiss, ruling he had waived his jurisdictional challenge by participating in the proceedings.
- The father (appellant) appealed the circuit court's denial to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-resident parent waive their objection to a Florida court's personal jurisdiction for financial matters, like child support, by participating in the same case to determine child custody and visitation under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Gross, J.
No. A non-resident parent does not waive their objection to personal jurisdiction for financial matters by participating in a child custody determination under the UCCJEA. The court analyzed jurisdiction using the two-prong test from Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais. First, the mother's petition failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within Florida's long-arm statute, as it did not claim the father ever resided in Florida or that the children were conceived there. Second, the father lacked the sufficient 'minimum contacts' with Florida required to satisfy due process. The court rejected the mother's waiver argument, reasoning that the UCCJEA, specifically section 61.510(1), expressly permits a party to make a limited appearance for a 'child custody determination' without subjecting themselves to personal jurisdiction for other purposes, such as child support or other monetary obligations. The father's actions, including filing for temporary custody and visitation, were defensive and fell within the scope of a 'child custody determination,' and thus did not constitute a request for affirmative relief that would waive his jurisdictional objection.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the important distinction between subject-matter jurisdiction for child custody under the UCCJEA and personal jurisdiction for monetary awards like child support. It clarifies that the UCCJEA's limited appearance provision provides a safe harbor for non-resident parents, allowing them to participate in vital custody and visitation matters without inadvertently submitting to the court's financial authority. This precedent prevents a parent's home state advantage in litigation and ensures that financial obligations are determined by a court that has proper constitutional and statutory power over the non-resident party, which typically requires minimum contacts with that state.
