IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SANDRA ANDERSON NUNEZ-MILLER,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-356

TERRENCE MILLER,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed January 13, 2017

Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County,

Melanie Chase, Judge.

Delaila Estefano, Coral Gables, for 

Appellant.

Shannon L. Akins, of Law Offices of 

Shannon L. Akins, P.A., Orlando, and 

Lauren Roderick Brusca, of The Roberts 

Family Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for 

Appellee.

EVANDER, J.

Sandra Anderson Nunez-Miller (“Former Wife”) appeals the trial court’s non-final 

order denying her Motion to Transfer Case to Miami-Dade County, Florida for Improper 

Venue and Pursuant to Florida’s Forum Non Conveniens Statute. We need not address 

Former Wife’s forum non conveniens argument because we hold that the trial court should 
2

have dismissed Terrence Miller’s (“Former Husband”) Verified Petition to Register a 

Foreign Decree Order in Florida and his Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify Final 

Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage for improper venue. 

The parties were married in Miami on May 28, 2005. They lived in Miami until 

December 21, 2006, at which time they moved to Germany. The parties separated while 

living in Germany. Former Husband relocated to Seminole County and Former Wife 

subsequently relocated to Miami-Dade County. Prior to relocating to the United States, 

Former Wife obtained a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in Germany on 

December 18, 2014. The final judgment awarded her “sole parental custody” of the 

parties’ minor child. 

On January 16, 2015, Former Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage 

in Seminole County. On that same date, he also filed, ex parte, his Emergency Verified 

Motion for Majority Time-Sharing, to Suspend or Restrict Respondent’s Time-Sharing, for 

Sole Parental Responsibility Including School Designation, and Revocation of the Minor 

Child’s Passport and his Emergency Motion for Child Pick-Up Order. Pursuant to the 

subsequently entered ex parte emergency pick-up order, the minor child was removed 

from Former Wife’s custody in Miami-Dade County and placed with Former Husband in 

Seminole County. Former Wife immediately filed her own emergency motion to have the 

child placed back in her custody. 

On January 26, 2015, the parties tentatively resolved their competing emergency 

motions by entering a stipulation providing for a temporary time-sharing arrangement. On 

that same date, Former Husband also filed his Verified Petition to Register a Foreign

Decree Order in Florida and his Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify Final 
3

Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. In response, Former Wife subsequently filed her 

motion to transfer the case to Miami-Dade County, as well as her affidavit in support 

thereof. After a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Former Wife’s motion. 

Section 47.011, Florida Statutes (2015) applies to actions to establish a foreign 

divorce decree as a Florida judgment. See Ruscoe v. Ruscoe, 327 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 

4th DCA 1976). That statute provides that “[a]ctions shall be brought only in the county 

where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property 

in litigation is located.” § 47.011, Fla. Stat. (2015). Accordingly, Florida courts have 

determined that an action to establish a foreign divorce decree as a Florida judgment is 

to be filed in the county where the responding party resides. See McIntire v. McIntire, 

352 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (“[W]hen a complaint to establish a foreign 

decree is brought, F.S. 47.011 controls and the action should be brought in the county 

where the responding party resides.”); Ruscoe, 327 So. 2d at 94 (holding that in action to 

establish foreign divorce decree as Florida judgment, the only venue alternative under 

section 47.011 was county where respondent resided). Because Former Wife resides in 

Miami-Dade County, that county was the proper venue for Former Husband’s petition to 

register a foreign decree order in Florida. 

Furthermore, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2015), the proper 

venue in Florida for Former Husband’s Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify Final 

Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage was in Miami-Dade County. Section 61.13(2)(d) 

provides that the proper venue for an action to modify a parenting plan is “[t]he circuit 

court in the county in which either parent and the child reside or the circuit court in which 

the original order approving or creating the parenting plan was entered.” Here, the original 
4

parenting plan was entered by a German court and the minor child resides with Former 

Wife in Miami-Dade County. 

Finally, we reject Former Husband’s suggestion that Former Wife waived her 

venue argument by failing to raise a venue objection at the time she filed her emergency 

motion for return of the minor child. Former Wife’s emergency motion was filed in 

response to the Seminole County circuit court exercising emergency jurisdiction over the 

minor child. Indeed, her motion was filed prior to the filing of Former Husband’s petition 

to register the German judgment in Florida and his amended supplemental petition to 

modify. In response to those petitions, Former Wife filed her motion challenging Former 

Husband’s venue selection. See Beckles v. Grover, 496 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 

1986) (holding that mother’s failure to challenge venue at same time she filed emergency 

motion to continue an unauthorized hearing did not constitute waiver). 

On remand, the trial court is directed to dismiss Former Husband’s Verified Petition 

to Register a Foreign Decree Order in Florida and his Amended Supplemental Petition to 

Modify Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage because venue was improper in 

Seminole County.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

SAWAYA and WALLIS, JJ., concur.