DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PAUL ERNEST VARCHETTI,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE ANNE VARCHETTI,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-582

[August 26, 2020]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 312019DR000482.

A. Julia Graves of the Law Office of A. Julia Graves, P.A., Vero Beach, 

for appellant.

Craig Marc Rappel of Rappel Health Law Group, PL, Vero Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Ernest Varchetti (“Husband”) appeals a non-final order denying as 

untimely his motion to change venue on the grounds of forum non 

conveniens. Because we find that the time limit provided in Florida Rule 

of Civil Procedure 1.061(g) does not apply, 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 

thirty-six witnesses to testify at trial, including seven expert witnesses, 

and that all the witnesses reside outside of Florida. Husband presented 

affidavits from experts regarding their costs and the inconvenience of 

travel to Florida. Wife did not present any evidence or refute any of 
2

Husband’s claims. Her sole argument was that Husband’s motion should 

be dismissed pursuant to rule 1.061(g) because it was filed more than sixty 

days after Husband was served with process. She cited Topic v. Topic, 

221 So. 3d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) and Fox v. Union Carbide Corp., 

910 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

The trial court denied Husband’s motion based on Topic and Fox and 

noted that “[b]y the plain language of Rule 1.061(g), a motion to dismiss 

based upon forum non conveniens must be served no later than 60 days 

after service on the moving party. The Rule provides no exception.” 

(emphases in original). 

“A trial court’s ruling on whether a forum is inconvenient is 

discretionary” and subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. 

Steckler v. Steckler, 921 So. 2d 740, 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing 

McDaniel v. Burton, 748 So. 2d 1072, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). “To the 

extent the circuit court’s decision was based on a construction of the rules 

at issue, our review is de novo.” Lesinski v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 

226 So. 3d 964, 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citing Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa 

Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786, 790 (Fla. 2011)).

Husband argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law because 

rule 1.061(g) does not apply to family law cases; therefore, the sixty-day 

time limit is inapplicable. 

In 2017, the Florida Supreme Court amended the Florida Family Law 

Rules of Procedure to create a “stand-alone” set of rules for family law 

proceedings. See In re Amendments to Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure, 

214 So. 3d 400, 400 (Fla. 2017). The supreme court noted that when the 

Family Law Rules were first adopted in 1995, the Family Law Rules 

Committee had initially proposed a “stand-alone” version. Id. The Florida 

Bar Board of Governors thought “that the Family Law Rules should 

reference the [Rules of Civil Procedure] where necessary rather than” act 

as a “stand-alone” set of rules. Id. In 1995, the supreme court agreed

with the Board of Governors. Id.

Then in 2017, the Family Law Rules Committee, this time with the 

support of the Board of Governors, submitted proposed amendments to 

create a “stand-alone” version of the Family Law Rules. Id. at 400–01. 

“Given the developments in the practice of marital and family law, the 

benefit to pro se litigants, and the Board’s support for the proposals,” the 

supreme court agreed “that consideration of a stand-alone set of rules for 

family law cases is warranted.” Id. at 401. The supreme court concluded 

that “[u]pon consideration of the report, the Committee’s proposals, the 
3

comments, and the Committee’s response thereto, we adopt the proposed 

rule amendments creating a stand-alone set of Family Law Rules of 

Procedure, with several modifications.” Id. 

The “stand-alone” nature of the amended Family Law Rules is 

evidenced by the removal of references to the Rules of Civil Procedure. In 

addition to removing references to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the 2017 

amendments added in stand-alone procedures for pleadings, motions, and 

captions. See id. at 407–14.

Accordingly, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.061(g) no longer provides 

a time limit for motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens in family law 

cases.

The cases relied upon by the trial court are inapplicable. Fox was an 

action regarding asbestos-related illnesses. Fox, 910 So. 2d at 422. Topic 

was a family law case, but the 2017 amendments to the Family Law Rules 

did not apply. The husband in Topic moved to dismiss for forum non 

conveniens in 2016. Topic, 221 So. 3d at 749. The 2017 amendments 

only apply to family law cases as of March 16, 2017. “Any action taken in 

a family law case before March 16, 2017, that conformed to the theneffective rules or statutes governing family law cases, will be regarded as 

valid during the pendency of the litigation.” Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.005.

On appeal, Wife relies on cases citing section 47.122, Florida Statutes, 

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. Stat. (2019). Wife 

cites rule 12.140(b)(3), which requires that a defense based on improper 

venue must be made by motion before filing an answer. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 

12.140(b)(3). Wife also cites rule 12.060, which controls transfers of venue 

within Florida if the action is filed in the “wrong venue.” See Fla. Fam. L. 

R. P. 12.060. However, the Husband’s argument is that the venue is 

inconvenient, not improper. “A motion to dismiss/transfer venue due to 

the impropriety of the plaintiff’s venue selection is significantly different 

than a motion to transfer on forum non conveniens grounds.” Eggers v. 

Eggers, 776 So. 2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). 
4

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. Stat.

(2019) (“If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum 

and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay 

the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be 

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. The Family Law Rules do not contain any time limit 

for raising the issue of inconvenient forum under the UCCJEA. The 

UCCJEA provides: 

A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this part to 

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. Stat. (emphasis added). “The issue of inconvenient forum 

may be raised upon motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or request 

of another court.” Id. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial 

court to rule on the merits of Husband’s motion.

Reversed and remanded.

LEVINE, C.J., CONNER and GERBER, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.