Markus Niemeyer v. Sinem Suder Niemeyer

No. 3D24-1692 · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · April 23, 2025 · No. No. 3D24-1692

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed without prejudice the denial of a husband's motion for an antisuit injunction barring his wife from pursuing dissolution proceedings in Turkey. The court agreed that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act could support Florida jurisdictional priority but held that unresolved factual issues, the absence of an evidentiary hearing, and the ongoing Hague Convention proceedings prevented a determination that the trial court abused its discretion. The husband may renew the motion or seek an evidentiary hearing after further proceedings in Turkey.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Writing for the Court
MILLER, J.; LOGUE, C.J.; EMAS, J.
Jurisdiction
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Decision date
April 23, 2025
Docket number
No. 3D24-1692
Procedural posture
Appeal from a nonfinal order of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County denying an emergency motion for an antisuit injunction barring the appellee from litigating a Turkish dissolution proceeding while a parallel Florida dissolution proceeding was pending.
Standard of review
Denial of a temporary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal principles implicated by the decision are reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published Florida Third District Court of Appeal opinion
Parties
Markus Niemeyer v. Sinem Suder Niemeyer
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

injunctionschild custodyforeign affairsappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

family lawinternational family lawcivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying an antisuit injunction against the wife's prosecution of a parallel dissolution proceeding in Turkey.
  2. Whether Florida had jurisdictional priority under the UCCJEA because it was the child's home state.
  3. Whether the existing record was sufficient to resolve the factual disputes concerning the child's home state and habitual residence and to determine whether an antisuit injunction was warranted.

Holdings

  1. A court may issue an antisuit injunction against a party subject to its jurisdiction to prevent litigation in another state or foreign country, but foreign antisuit injunctions are available only in the most compelling circumstances and require consideration of jurisdictional interference, vital state policies, domestic interests, and international comity.
  2. The court agreed with the husband's construction of the UCCJEA that Florida's status as the child's home state could provide Florida jurisdictional priority, but the court did not conclusively resolve jurisdiction because the factual record was inadequate and materially disputed.
  3. The denial of the antisuit injunction was not an abuse of discretion on the limited record presented, and the order was affirmed without prejudice.

Key quotations

But the general rule is that “when concurrent jurisdiction exists” in parallel fora, “‘each forum is ordinarily free to proceed to a judgment.’” (at 4)
“[S]ince the effect of an injunction is to ‘restrict the foreign court’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction,’ which may invite reciprocal action in kind, ‘only in the most compelling circumstances does a court have discretion to issue an antisuit injunction.’” (at 4-5)
Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to the husband’s right to seek an evidentiary hearing or renew his motion upon further ruling from the Turkish Constitutional Court. (at 7)

Factual background

The parties married in Miami in 2016, and their child was born in 2017. The husband alleged that the child lived continuously in Miami and attended a Miami-Dade County public school, while the wife alleged that the child was a Turkish citizen who spent up to six months annually in Turkey, began schooling there, and was enrolled in Istanbul. In March 2023, the wife took the child from Miami to Turkey and filed a Turkish dissolution action eight days later; Turkish courts initially found Turkey to be the child's habitual residence. The husband filed a Florida dissolution action, sought relief under the Hague Convention, and moved for an antisuit injunction, while the Turkish Hague-related proceedings ultimately ordered the child's return to Miami, subject to a stay by the Turkish Constitutional Court.

Procedural history

The husband filed a Florida dissolution action after the wife removed the child to Turkey and filed a dissolution action there. He later moved to enjoin the wife from proceeding in Turkey. After a nonevidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the motion, citing lack of irreparable harm among other factors. The husband appealed; while the appeal was pending, Turkish courts ordered the child's return to Miami, but the Turkish Constitutional Court stayed that order.

Remand instructions

No remand was ordered. The affirmance was without prejudice to the husband's right to seek an evidentiary hearing or renew his antisuit motion after further ruling by the Turkish Constitutional Court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…