## Facts

- Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Dade County seeking only dissolution on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken.
- Wife moved to dismiss or abate for improper venue, submitting an affidavit stating both parties resided in Broward County.
- Wife’s affidavit also asserted Broward County was where the parties last cohabited with a common intent to remain married, where the marriage became irretrievably broken, and where the marital home was located.
- Husband operated a blueprint supply business in Dade County; corporate records and witnesses related to that business were located there.
- Wife owned 50% of the shares of the Dade County company; husband held corporate offices and managed daily operations but alleged no stock ownership.
- Husband argued venue was proper in Dade County because property connected to anticipated equitable distribution issues was located there and he might amend to seek property division.
- The trial court denied the wife’s venue motion, and the district court affirmed based on the expected focus on Dade County business assets and witnesses.
- The state supreme court accepted review due to conflict with prior decisions defining proper venue for dissolution actions.

## Issues

1. Whether the “property in litigation” clause in Florida’s general venue statute, § 47.011, permits venue in a marital dissolution action based on the location of marital property or business interests.
2. Where venue properly lies for a dissolution of marriage action under § 47.011.

## Decision

- The court quashed the district court’s decision.
- The court held the “property in litigation” clause of § 47.011 applies only to local actions involving real property and does not apply to dissolution of marriage cases.
- The court ruled that venue in a dissolution action lies in the county where the defendant resides or where the cause of action accrued.
- The court rejected reliance on anticipated equitable distribution disputes, business records, and witness convenience as a basis to treat dissolution as a “property in litigation” case for venue purposes.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the venue rule stated by the court.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 47.011, venue is proper in the county where the defendant resides or where the cause of action accrued; the “property in litigation” basis is limited to local actions involving real property that is the subject of the suit.
- Dissolution of marriage is a transitory action; it accrues in the Florida county where the spouses were last together with a common intent to remain married.
- The presence of marital assets, business interests, or anticipated claims for equitable distribution does not convert a dissolution action into a local property action for venue purposes.

## Conclusion

The court held that a dissolution of marriage cannot be venued based on the location of marital property under § 47.011; venue must be determined by the defendant’s residence or the county where the dissolution cause accrued, defined as the parties’ last shared presence with a common intent to remain married.


Goedmakers v. Goedmakers, 520 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1988)