Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...sued the protective order to determine jurisdiction as *744 required by the UCCJEA. [2] The former wife contends that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a hearing to determine jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum factors enumerated in section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2005). Under section 61.520, any party may raise the issue of inconvenient forum. Section 61.520(2) provides that "[b]efore determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction....

...is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable" or "where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980). While it is unclear whether the trial court considered the relevant factors enumerated in section 61.520(2) since it did not issue any findings of fact on the issue, we nonetheless conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion in retaining jurisdiction and declining to determine that Florida is no longer a convenient forum for child custody proceedings....

...Dileo was arguing either that Florida no longer had jurisdiction over the issue of child support (apparently based on sections 61.515 and 61.514, Florida Statutes (2005)), or that the Florida forum was now inconvenient and should not exercise further jurisdiction, in accordance with section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...The UCCJEA provides that a court with jurisdiction over a custody cause may decline to exercise that jurisdiction if the court "determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum." § 61.520(1), Fla....

...[3] The transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another on the ground of inconvenient forum may be raised in a motion from either party, the court, or the request of another court; provided the court follows the statutory procedures and considerations. See § 61.520(1), (2)(a)-(h)....

...(2010). [3] See Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.205(c), providing that "[i]f it should appear at any time that an action is pending in another state, the court may transfer jurisdiction over the action to a more convenient forum state...." [4] Section 61.520(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following factors to be considered by the trial court in determining whether another state is a more appropriate forum: (a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the futu...

...of the child; (g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and (h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation. § 61.520(2)(a)-(h), Fla....

...Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) affidavit; it ordered the mother to file a sworn affidavit, under oath before a notary, attesting to the allegations in her letter; and it ordered both parties to file affidavits addressing the statutory factors listed under section 61.520(2)(a)-(h), Florida Statutes (2010), the inconvenient forum section of the UCCJEA....

...es to live in this state; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 [the “inconvenient forum” section of the UC-CJEA] or s....

...l relationships; *1054 ce) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s....

...In the mother’s letter, she stated that she does not have the money to travel to Florida or to hire an attorney to represent her in Florida. And although the trial court appears to touch upon this issue in the third paragraph of its order, the court references section 61.514(l)(a) in this paragraph and not section 61.520, the inconvenient forum section....

...Holub, 54 So.3d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). The trial court clearly recognized the inconvenient forum issue in its “Order Regarding Jurisdiction/Forum Non Conveniens,” and it clearly directed both parties to address the relevant inconvenient forum factors listed in section 61.520(2)(a)-(h)....

...Thus, based on our review of the record, the trial court has not ruled on this issue, and we must remand this issue to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court may still decline to exercise jurisdiction after considering the statutory factors listed in section 61.520(2)(a)-(h)....

...It was not raised in the trial court. However, even if the trial court did have jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.514, Florida Statutes, it is apparent that the court dismissed the action on the grounds that Florida was an inconvenient forum. See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. At the hearing on the husband’s motions, the court heard evidence on the factors in section 61.520(2) that a court should consider in determining whether Florida is an inconvenient forum....

...etition. Thus, the trial court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that the home state of the minor children was Colorado under the UCCJEA. The mother’s argument that the trial court properly refused jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2011), is not supported by the record and does not merit further discussion....

...action relative to child support was proceeding, although it was desirable to consolidate the two to avoid opposite outcomes). A dissolution action can, and usually does, subsume a child custody determination but the reverse does not hold true. See § 61.520(4) (providing that “[a] court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this part if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceedings”)....

...tion if the court ‘determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.’ ” K.I. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 70 So.3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 61.520(1), Fla....

...ocated in Florida, so that dismissal of the Florida case and a “transfer” of the case to Puerto Rico was warranted. A Florida trial court does have the ability to transfer a case when it determines that another forum is more convenient. Section 61.520, “Inconvenient Forum,” in subpart (1), permits a court of this state which has jurisdiction to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum....

...The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court's own motion, or a request by another court. Under section 61.503(15), Puerto Rico is a “state” for purposes of the UCCJEA as enacted in Florida, though Puerto Rico itself has not enacted the UCCJEA. Section 61.520(3) specifically contemplates that the transferring court “shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be 6 promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.” (Emphasis added). This is essentially what the trial court sought to accomplish when it ordered DCF to inquire into starting an action in Puerto Rico. Section 61.520(2) sets forth the matters to be considered as the trial court exercises its discretion to transfer a case to another jurisdiction: (2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall co...

...trial court, but on the present record two alternatives present themselves: (1) the trial court may authorize DCF to prosecute the TPR case to its conclusion in Florida, or (2) the trial court may conduct a hearing and enter findings regarding the “relevant factors” set forth in section 61.520(2), before making a determination whether or not the Florida case should be formally transferred to Puerto Rico. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion....

another state is a more appropriate forum." § 61.520(1). Here, the trial court acknowledged

...priority on the calendar and handled expeditiously." 3  On February 9, 2024, the trial court sua sponte issued an order relinquishing jurisdiction of this custody proceeding to the North Carolina court based on section 61.520(1), Florida Statutes (2024), ruling that North Carolina was a more convenient forum—no mention was made in the order to the Aunt's emergency or expedited motions.2 The trial court found that under the UCCJEA, a court with jurisdictio...

...A trial court having such jurisdiction may, on its own motion, "decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum." § 61.520(1). But before making this determination, the trial court must determine whether it is appropriate for the court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. § 61.520(2)....

...opportunity to be heard is generally error. See Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. M.N., 199 So. 3d 452, 455-56 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (reversing order of dismissal and remanding for further proceedings where record did not reflect trial court's consideration of factors under section 61.520(2)); cf. Steckler v. Steckler, 921 So. 2d 740, 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the section 61.520(2) factors, where the movant submitted information on some of the factors and the court declined to relinquish jurisdiction). Those cases reversing and remanding to allow the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard dealt wi...

...opportunity to be heard in proceedings under the UCCJEA. In this case, the Aunt, who was granted temporary custody under section 3 When the court made this determination, two of the Aunt's emergency motions were pending which addressed a number of the section 61.520(2) factors, although it is not apparent from the record in this case whether the trial court considered the information in the Aunt's motions in deciding to relinquish jurisdiction. 6 751.02(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2023), argues that she too is entitled to be heard on the section 61.520(2) factors, and we agree. The initial trial court granted the Aunt temporary custody of the minor child based on the parents' consents pursuant to section 751.02(1)(a)....

...re a party in this proceeding. Cf. M.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 380 So. 3d 469, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (stating that in the chapter 39 context, a "party" entitled to notice includes the petitioner). Because she is a party, she is entitled under section 61.520(2) to "submit information" for the court to consider prior to making its determination on whether to relinquish its jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court erred in entering the order relinquishing jurisdiction without allowing the Aunt notice and an opportunity to present information for its consideration relevant to the relinquishment of jurisdiction under section 61.520(2). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order sua sponte relinquishing jurisdiction and remand for the trial court to consider and permit the Aunt to submit information on the factors in section 61.520(2) prior to entry of an order relinquishing jurisdiction under section 61.520(1). See M.N., 199 So. 3d at 455-56 ("[T]he trial court may conduct a hearing and enter findings regarding the 'relevant factors' set forth in section 61.520(2), before making a determination whether or not the Florida case should be formally transferred to" another jurisdiction 7 (emphasis added)).4 This matter shall be given priority pursuant to s...

...Reversed and remanded. SLEET, C.J., and ATKINSON, J., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 4 This opinion is not to be construed as requiring the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing or enter written findings on the section 61.520(2) factors. 8 

...n to make an initial determination under s. 61.514(1)(a) or (b) and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under s. 61.515 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under s. 61.520; or (2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state....

...mmenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this part, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520....

...ke an initial determination (under section 61.514(1)(a) or (b)) are present." Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So.2d 698, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (emphasis added) (quoting § 61.516, Fla. Stat. (2005)). [6] The UCCJEA defines the term "inconvenient forum" in section 61.520....

...of the child; (g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and (h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation. § 61.520(2)....

... Alternatively, a Florida court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction “may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” § 61.520, Fla. Stat. (2022). Before doing so, however, the court must consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction, by considering all relevant factors, including eight statutory factors. § 61.520(2), Fla. Stat. (2022). Neither section 61.515 nor section 61.520 uses the phrase “home state,” much less uses it as a basis for Florida to cede its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to another state....

...decision to cede its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to Illinois under section 61.515(1)(a) or (b), nor could they have because Appellant still resided in Florida and the child still had significant contact with Florida. Nor do these statements support ceding jurisdiction under 61.520 (inconvenient forum) because the findings do not conform to the statutory requirements of that section....

...[if] a proceeding concerning the custody of the child had been commenced in a court of another state [properly exercising] jurisdiction ... unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520.")....

...d no merit to this claim. First, the mother conflates the statutory burdens encumbering a court declining to exercise jurisdiction with the duty of a home state to accept transfer absent a reasoned determination that it is an inconvenient forum. See § 61.520(2), Fla....

...[if] a proceeding concerning the custody of the child had been commenced in a court of another state [properly exercising] jurisdiction ... unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520.")....

...d no merit to this claim. First, the mother conflates the statutory burdens encumbering a court declining to exercise jurisdiction with the duty of a home state to accept transfer absent a reasoned determination that it is an inconvenient forum. See § 61.520(2), Fla....

PER CURIAM. The father seeks review of an order dismissing a child custody case on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conve-niens, in favor of a pending action in Aruba. We find neither abuse of discretion nor error of law. See § 61.520, Fla....

...Jenkins, based on her contention that Florida is an inconvenient forum. Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion and, moreover, contends that this denial violated her due process rights. The trial court denied the motion, filed pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2013), after weighing the factors enumerated under that section and finding that Wife had not met her burden to establish that Tennessee is a more appropriate forum for hearing the case....

...h the Georgia Superior Court requesting the Georgia Court to modify the Final Judgment or, alternatively, requesting the Georgia Court to determine whether Florida or some other State would be a more appropriate forum as discussed in Florida Statute § 61.520....

...ly, we reverse. The parties moved from Michigan to Florida with their two minor children in 2018. Appellee Julie Anne Varchetti (“Wife”) filed for divorce in the proceeding below in 2019. Husband moved to change venue to Michigan pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2019), Florida’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), arguing that Florida is an inconvenient forum. At the hearing on the motion, Husband argued that he would be calling thir...

...but section 47.122 is inapplicable. Section 47.122 governs changes of venue for convenience within Florida. See § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (2019); Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Friese, 956 So. 2d 495, 496–97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Husband’s motion was filed pursuant to section 61.520 of the UCCJEA, which provides for a Florida trial court to decline jurisdiction in favor of another state when “it determines that [the Florida court] is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” § 61.520(1), Fla....

...5th DCA 2001). 3  Finally, although the trial court determined it has jurisdiction over the minor children under the UCCJEA, that does not preclude the court from finding that Michigan is a more convenient forum. § 61.520(3), Fla....

...promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.”); M.A.C. v. M.D.H., 88 So. 3d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for the trial court to consider the factors listed in section 61.520(2)(a)–(h) before deciding to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA). As discussed above, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(g) does not apply to motions to change venue on the grounds of forum non conveniens in family law cases....

...make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. § 61.520(1), Fla....

...law will provide him with a more favorable result than if those issues are resolved in New York, where the child and legal father, who was judicially granted sole custody of the child, reside. Our analysis is directed by sections 61.515 and 61.520, Florida Statutes (2015)....

...pursuant to section 61.515(b), the trial court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to make child custody determinations, the trial court has not yet made that determination. We, therefore, treat the trial court’s jurisdiction as exclusive, and analyze section 61.520 under the lens of exclusivity. Suit was brought under the UCCJEA, which contains a specific forum non conveniens provision, section 61.520....

...d conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying DeStefanis’ motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens under that analysis as well. We now address the specific forum non conveniens provision under the UCCJEA, section 61.520. Section 61.520 permits a court in this state that has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination to “decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” § 61.520(1). Section 61.520(2) requires the court to consider all relevant factors, but lists several factors that the court must consider. Section 61.520(2) provides as follows: (2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction....

...The record reflects that the child was born in Missouri, lived in New York before living in Florida for ten months and then returned to New 8 York. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court failed to comply with section 61.520(2)(b) by failing to consider fully “[t]he length of time the child has resided outside this state.” We also find no support in the record for the trial court’s determination under section 61.520(2)(f) that “[t]he nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the litigation includes witnesses and documents in both jurisdictions.” Tan has not been able to identify any witness or evidence presently located in Florida....

...Lastly, when the trial court considered the distance between the trial court in Florida and the trial court in New York, it concluded that the distance that the parties would have to travel would “not impose an impediment.” See § 61.520(2)(c)....

...own no property, have no business, and have no relatives living in Florida), we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by continuing to exercise its jurisdiction over the child custody issues and denying DeStefanis’ motion to dismiss under section 61.520. According, we reverse the trial court’s order denying DeStefanis’ motion to dismiss pursuant to section 61.520. Reversed and remanded. 10