Opinion
No. 3D19-1709
03-25-2020
Catherin A. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Trond Berle CHRISTIANSEN, Appellee.
Danenza Law Group, P.A., and Joseph J. Danenza, for appellant. The Law Offices of S.G. Morrow & Associates, P.A., and Stephanie G. Morrow, for appellee.
Danenza Law Group, P.A., and Joseph J. Danenza, for appellant.
The Law Offices of S.G. Morrow & Associates, P.A., and Stephanie G. Morrow, for appellee.
Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J. The wife appeals the trial court's order granting the husband's motion to dismiss her petition for dissolution of marriage. The wife filed her petition in Florida circuit court in February 2019. The husband moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction asserting that the wife resides in Denmark.
"Florida law requires one of the parties to the marriage to reside in the state for six months before filing a petition for dissolution of marriage." Jenkins v. Jenkins, 915 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing § 61.021, Fla. Stat. (2004) ). "Residency has been defined as ‘an actual presence in Florida coupled with an intention at that time to make Florida the residence.’ " Id. (quoting Gillman v. Gillman, 413 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) ). The trial court must find proof of residency by clear and convincing evidence. Beaucamp v. Beaucamp, 508 So. 2d 419, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the husband's motion and heard from both parties. The evidence adduced at the hearing was that the parties were married in Norway in 2007. They lived in Norway for several years and then moved to Denmark in 2012. The husband testified that he retired in 2016 and moved back to Norway, but the wife stayed in Denmark. They would travel back and forth between Norway and Denmark for weeks at a time to visit each other.
The husband testified that during the six months prior to the filing of the dissolution of marriage petition the wife resided in Denmark and Norway. He testified that the wife had undergone surgery in Denmark in September 2018 and January 2019. He further testified that in January 2019 he accompanied the wife to file for permanent residency in Denmark. The husband testified that the parties own a vacation home in Aventura, Florida. With the exception of staying in Florida for six weeks in November and December 2018, the husband testified that the bank statements from their joint account confirmed the wife remained in Denmark and Norway between July 2018 and February 2019.
The wife testified that she became a Florida resident in 2007, but moved to Denmark in 2012. She admitted submitting an application for permanent residency in Denmark in January 2019—one month prior to filing her dissolution of marriage petition in Florida. In her permanent residency application, the wife verified under oath that she had established a "genuine existence" in Denmark. At the hearing, the wife claimed she was seeking residency in Denmark for medical purposes. She testified to having undergone multiple surgeries, which required significant recovery time in Denmark, in the year preceding the filing of the dissolution of marriage petition. Yet, the wife was unable to recall the dates of her surgeries and, aside from testifying she spent time in Miami from October to December 2018, she could not remember where she was physically present during the six months prior to filing the petition.
After considering all the testimony and evidence, the court found the wife was not credible and she failed to establish her residence in Florida for six months preceding the filing of the petition by clear and convincing evidence. The court further found, based on the testimony of both the husband and the wife, that they were living in Denmark in January 2019 and filed for permanent residency on behalf of the wife saying that she lived there. Thus, the court granted the motion to dismiss.
"We review the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard." Jenkins, 915 So. 2d at 1250 (citing McCloskey v. McCloskey, 359 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) ). "The trial court's discretion is abused ‘only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.’ " Marques v. Garcia, 245 So. 3d 900, 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Hyatt Corp. v. Howarth, 678 So. 2d 823, 824 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ). See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980). Under this deferential standard, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the wife failed to meet the residence requirements for filing a dissolution of marriage petition in Florida.
Affirmed.