Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 61.052 (2025)

Dissolution of marriage.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

61.052 Dissolution of marriage.—

(1) No judgment of dissolution of marriage shall be granted unless one of the following facts appears, which shall be pleaded generally:

(a) The marriage is irretrievably broken.

(b) Mental incapacity of one of the parties. However, no dissolution shall be allowed unless the party alleged to be incapacitated shall have been adjudged incapacitated according to the provisions of s. 744.331 for a preceding period of at least 3 years. Notice of the proceeding for dissolution shall be served upon one of the nearest blood relatives or guardian of the incapacitated person, and the relative or guardian shall be entitled to appear and to be heard upon the issues. If the incapacitated party has a general guardian other than the party bringing the proceeding, the petition and summons shall be served upon the incapacitated party and the guardian; and the guardian shall defend and protect the interests of the incapacitated party. If the incapacitated party has no guardian other than the party bringing the proceeding, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to defend and protect the interests of the incapacitated party. However, in all dissolutions of marriage granted on the basis of incapacity, the court may require the petitioner to pay alimony pursuant to the provisions of s. 61.08.

(2) Based on the evidence at the hearing, which evidence need not be corroborated except to establish that the residence requirements of s. 61.021 are met which may be corroborated by a valid Florida driver license, a Florida voter’s registration card, a valid Florida identification card issued under s. 322.051, or the testimony or affidavit of a third party, the court shall dispose of the petition for dissolution of marriage when the petition is based on the allegation that the marriage is irretrievably broken as follows:

(a) If there is no minor child of the marriage and if the responding party does not, by answer to the petition for dissolution, deny that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall enter a judgment of dissolution of the marriage if the court finds that the marriage is irretrievably broken.

(b) When there is a minor child of the marriage, or when the responding party denies by answer to the petition for dissolution that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court may:

1. Order either or both parties to consult with a marriage counselor, psychologist, psychiatrist, minister, priest, rabbi, or any other person deemed qualified by the court and acceptable to the party or parties ordered to seek consultation; or

2. Continue the proceedings for a reasonable length of time not to exceed 3 months, to enable the parties themselves to effect a reconciliation; or

3. Take such other action as may be in the best interest of the parties and the minor child of the marriage.

If, at any time, the court finds that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall enter a judgment of dissolution of the marriage. If the court finds that the marriage is not irretrievably broken, it shall deny the petition for dissolution of marriage.

(3) During any period of continuance, the court may make appropriate orders for the support and alimony of the parties; the parenting plan, support, maintenance, and education of the minor child of the marriage; attorney’s fees; and the preservation of the property of the parties.

(4) A judgment of dissolution of marriage shall result in each spouse having the status of being single and unmarried. No judgment of dissolution of marriage renders the child of the marriage a child born out of wedlock.

(5) The court may enforce an antenuptial agreement to arbitrate a dispute in accordance with the law and tradition chosen by the parties.

(6) Any injunction for protection against domestic violence arising out of the dissolution of marriage proceeding shall be issued as a separate order in compliance with chapter 741 and shall not be included in the judgment of dissolution of marriage.

(7) In the initial pleading for a dissolution of marriage as a separate attachment to the pleading, each party is required to provide his or her social security number and the full names and social security numbers of each of the minor children of the marriage.

(8) Pursuant to the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each party is required to provide his or her social security number in accordance with this section. Each party is also required to provide the full name, date of birth, and social security number for each minor child of the marriage. Disclosure of social security numbers obtained through this requirement shall be limited to the purpose of administration of the Title IV-D program for child support enforcement.

History.—s. 7, ch. 71-241; s. 26, ch. 73-333; s. 38, ch. 81-259; s. 1, ch. 86-150; s. 114, ch. 86-220; s. 1, ch. 89-61; s. 107, ch. 89-96; s. 1, ch. 91-246; s. 2, ch. 93-188; s. 4, ch. 96-183; s. 1, ch. 96-392; s. 2, ch. 97-170; s. 3, ch. 97-242; s. 12, ch. 98-403; s. 1, ch. 99-375; s. 3, ch. 2008-61.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 7× “The motion alleged that the requirements of section 61.052, Florida Statutes (1991), were not satisfied because Mrs.”

Goldberg v. Goldberg, 643 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). · cites it 13× “Section 61.052 replaced the former fault-based grounds for divorce.”

Gillman v. Gillman, 413 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). · cites it 6× “§ 61.052(2), Fla. Stat. (1971). Appellee did not testify to her Florida residence.”

Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1976). · cites it 5× “"Second, Fla. Stat. § 61.052 (2), F.S.A. clearly states that ` if, at anytime, the court finds that the marriage is irretrievably broken the court shall enter a judgment of dissolution of the marriage.”

Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Rules of Procedure & Fam. Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 3× “021, Florida Statutes or section 61.052(2), Florida Statutes. Special notes .”

Wrona v. Wrona, 592 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). · cites it 4× “§ 61.052(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). During any period of continuance, the court is authorized to enter appropriate orders for "the preservation of the property of the parties.”

Romano v. Olshen, 153 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). · cites it 5× “Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the dissolution proceeding abated for a period of three years, pursuant to section 61.052. As a residual effect, Irene’s motion regarding the prenuptial agreement was placed on indeterminate hold.”

Parker v. Parker, 950 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2007). · cites it 2× “See § 61.052, Fla. Stat. (1999) (requiring trial courts to take notice that there is a minor child belonging to a marriage and to take appropriate steps to further the best interests of the child and the parties during the pendency of the action); D.”

Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · cites it 3× “, § 61.052(3), Fla. Stat. (2002); see also Kalmanson v.”

Guida v. Guida, 870 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). · cites it 2× “Finally, the trial court erred by including in the final judgment an injunction against the Husband having contact with the Wife or son, stating, "Husband shall make no contact with the minor son," and "The Husband is hereby enjoined and restrained from harassing, harming,…”

Waite v. Waite, 64 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 60-1601 (2000) (incompatibility); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.052 (West 2000) (irretrievably broken).”

In Re Fam. Law Rules of Procedure, 663 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 3× “&check; Your marriage must be irretrievably broken (you want to end your marriage because of serious permanent differences) or one of you must be mentally incapacitated (see section 61.052(1)(b), Florida Statutes). &check; If the parties lived in the State of Florida, the place…”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— 61.052(1) — 3 cases

Goldberg v. Goldberg, 643 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “Section 61.052 replaced the former fault-based grounds for divorce.”

Rosie Lee Williams Vs Roger Williams, Sr. (Fla. 1st DCA 2023).

Cooper v. Cooper, 725 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

— 61.052(1)(a) — 1 case

Oliver v. Stufflebeam, 155 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

— 61.052(1)(b) — 6 cases

Goldberg v. Goldberg, 643 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “Section 61.052 replaced the former fault-based grounds for divorce.”

Andrade v. Andrade, 720 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

In Re Fam. Law Rules of Procedure, 663 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1995). “&check; Your marriage must be irretrievably broken (you want to end your marriage because of serious permanent differences) or one of you must be mentally incapacitated (see section 61.052(1)(b), Florida Statutes). &check; If the parties lived in the State of Florida, the place…”

Vaughan v. Guardianship of Vaughan, 648 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Mogul v. Mogul, 730 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

— 61.052(2) — 27 cases

Gillman v. Gillman, 413 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “§ 61.052(2), Fla. Stat. (1971). Appellee did not testify to her Florida residence.”

Fernandez v. Fernandez, 648 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1995). “The motion alleged that the requirements of section 61.052, Florida Statutes (1991), were not satisfied because Mrs.”

Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Rules of Procedure & Fam. Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2000). “021, Florida Statutes or section 61.052(2), Florida Statutes. Special notes .”

Wrona v. Wrona, 592 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). “§ 61.052(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). During any period of continuance, the court is authorized to enter appropriate orders for "the preservation of the property of the parties.”

— 61.052(2)(a) — 2 cases

Florida Bar Re Amendment to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 450 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1983).

Carrigan v. Carrigan, 283 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

— 61.052(2)(b) — 5 cases

Riley v. Riley, 271 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).

Glazer v. Glazer, 394 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Kipnis v. Kipnis, 330 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Horne v. Horne, 711 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Nooe v. Nooe, 277 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).

— 61.052(3) — 3 cases

Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “, § 61.052(3), Fla. Stat. (2002); see also Kalmanson v.”

Haslauer v. Haslauer (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

— 61.052(4) — 3 cases

Taylor v. Taylor, 279 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Haslauer v. Haslauer (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

John R. Secrist v. Elizabeth A. Secrist (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

— 61.052(6) — 1 case

Guida v. Guida, 870 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). “Finally, the trial court erred by including in the final judgment an injunction against the Husband having contact with the Wife or son, stating, "Husband shall make no contact with the minor son," and "The Husband is hereby enjoined and restrained from harassing, harming,…”

— 61.052(7) — 4 cases

Hall v. MAAL, 32 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Rules of Procedure & Fam. Law Forms, 810 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2000). “021, Florida Statutes or section 61.052(2), Florida Statutes. Special notes .”

Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Rules, 713 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1998).

Amendments to the Florida Fam. Law Forms, 759 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1999).

— 61.052(l)(b) — 5 cases

Romano v. Olshen, 153 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). “Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the dissolution proceeding abated for a period of three years, pursuant to section 61.052. As a residual effect, Irene’s motion regarding the prenuptial agreement was placed on indeterminate hold.”

Lois Zelman v. Martin Zelman, Robert Zelman, Lisa Held & Curtis Rogers, 175 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Drelich v. Guardianship of Drelich, 201 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Vaughan v. Vaughan, 630 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Cooper v. Cooper, 725 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.