Alexander Appellate Law Wins Affirmance in Deltona Appeal

After briefing by Alexander Appellate Law, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s order in our Deltona client’s favor, ruling that when a foreign national agrees to litigate an issue in Florida and fails to raise any jurisdictional challenges in a first responsive pleading, those defenses are waived and Florida may exercise jurisdiction over the case.

After Michael Codrington filed a paternity suit proposing a child parenting plan, his wife, who lives in Belize, responded with a letter expressing agreement with the majority of the plan. She also expressed a willingness to litigate the issue in Florida.

A few months later, Ms. Edwards retained Akerman, LLP and began aggressively litigating the case, attempting to get it dismissed on numerous grounds, including the Hague Convention. When the trial court refused, Ms. Edwards appealed, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and evidentiary hearing by ambush.

On appeal, our firm argued that Ms. Edwards waived these arguments by failing to raise them in her first responsive pleading – her letter to the court. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed, reasoning:

If Edwards wanted to assert a lack of personal jurisdiction, she needed to raise that defense in her pro se answer. Her failure to do so results in a waiver of her ability to raise this defense. See Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.140(b) & (h)(1). Moreover, rule 12.140(b) mandates she outline the “grounds on which” the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over her and “the substantial matters of law intended to be argued ... specifically and with particularity.” Gannon v. Cuckler, 281 So. 3d 587, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (citing Roach v. Totalbank, 85 So. 3d 574, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). We cannot conclude her pro se answer complied with rule 12.140(b)’s plain language.

Edwards v. Codrington, 325 So. 3d 993, 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

In rejecting her argument that she raised this issue by inference, the trial court reasoned:

Edwards's pro se answer lacks the word “jurisdiction,” much less a specific and particular legal argument why the trial court lacked it. To conclude Edwards had raised a valid challenge to personal jurisdiction in her pro se answer, we would have to ignore rule 12.140(b)’s plain language requiring a specific and particular legal argument. *997 See Roach, 85 So. 3d at 578 (finding litigants failed to state specific legal arguments when they simply cited “insufficiency of service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction as affirmative defenses” and did not outline “ substantial matters of law intended to be argued”). Consequently, we must affirm.

Edwards v. Codrington, 325 So. 3d 993, 996–97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

We also argued that the trial court did not need personal jurisdiction over both parents to make a custody determination, another argument the Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed with:

We also affirm the trial court's ruling on its personal jurisdiction over Edwards, although its ultimate rationale was flawed. See Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (stating that under tipsy coachman doctrine, appellate court may affirm trial court's decision where it “reaches the right result, but for the wrong reason”). The trial court correctly noted that it did not need personal jurisdiction over Edwards to make an initial custody determination over the child. See § 61.514(3), Fla. Stat. (2020).

Edwards v. Codrington, 325 So. 3d 993, 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

Additionally, our firm argued that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed because Ms. Edwards expressly agreed to litigate the issue in Florida, and because there was no transcript of the evidentiary hearing. The trial court agreed with this latter argument as well:

As an initial matter, the absence of a transcript prevents us from reviewing the trial court's fact-based determinations on subject matter jurisdiction and inconvenient forum. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the ... judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”). Edwards contends the trial court erred by taking Codrington's testimony when her notice of hearing did not reflect the hearing would be evidentiary in nature. But we have “decline[d] to announce a rule that every evidentiary hearing be specifically noticed as such.” Bishai v. Health Law Firm, P.A., 293 So. 3d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). On this record, we cannot conclude the *996 trial court abused Edwards's due process rights by taking evidence from Codrington on the child's home state, especially when Edwards raised this factual issue in her motion to dismiss. Similarly, in the absence of a transcript, we cannot question the trial court's finding that Edwards failed to present evidence or argument on inconvenient forum. We therefore affirm on these issues.

Edwards v. Codrington, 325 So. 3d 993, 995–96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)