Speigner v. Speigner
1993 WL 242659, 621 So. 2d 758 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory six-month residency requirement for a dissolution of marriage in Florida is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be proven by corroborated evidence and cannot be established by the parties' mutual admissions in pleadings.
Facts:
- Larry Owen Speigner and Gwendolyn Charlotte Speigner were a married couple.
- The marriage between the Speigners broke down.
- The parties sought a legal dissolution of their marriage in the state of Florida.
- During the final court hearing for the dissolution, neither party testified that they had resided in Florida for the preceding six months.
- No third-person testimony or other form of evidence was presented at the hearing to corroborate that either party met the six-month residency requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Gwendolyn Charlotte Speigner (wife) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in a Florida trial court, alleging she met the six-month residency requirement.
- Larry Owen Speigner (husband) filed an answer admitting the wife's residency and also filed a counter-petition for dissolution, alleging his own residency.
- The wife filed an answer to the counter-petition, admitting the husband's residency allegation.
- Following a final hearing where no corroborating evidence of residency was presented, the trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage.
- Larry Owen Speigner (Appellant) appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction, with Gwendolyn Charlotte Speigner as Appellee.
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 trial court have jurisdiction to enter a final judgment of dissolution of marriage when the statutory six-month residency requirement is not established by corroborated testimony or evidence, even if both parties admit to residency in their respective pleadings?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter a final judgment of dissolution of marriage if the statutory residency requirement is not proven with corroborated evidence. Compliance with Florida's six-month residency requirement, as mandated by section 61.021, is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or established by the consent or admission of the parties. Section 61.052(2) explicitly requires that proof of residency be corroborated. Precedent, including cases like Chisholm v. Chisholm and Wise v. Wise, firmly establishes that jurisdiction is lacking unless compliance is both pleaded and proved. Since the parties only admitted to residency in their pleadings and failed to provide any corroborating evidence at the final hearing, the trial court did not have the authority to grant the dissolution. Therefore, the final judgment is void.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict, non-waivable, and jurisdictional nature of Florida's statutory residency requirement in dissolution of marriage cases. It clarifies that parties cannot circumvent this requirement through mutual agreement or admissions, underscoring the state's interest in the marital status of its residents. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder to family law practitioners that proving residency through corroborated evidence is an indispensable element of proof. Failure to present such evidence renders any resulting judgment void and subject to reversal on appeal.
