Latigo, it has nothing to do with jurisdiction. It has to do with the ownership of the real estate. While a court can partition the property and deposit the funds due the wife into the states holding depository, I suspect the courts would be hesitant to do such, at least without the op proving an earnest search for the co-owner of the property aka op's wife.
The divorce is the easy part. Separating personal property, is more difficult. Separating real property has multitudes of problems.
Can you explain a simple method of partitioning the real property without input from the co-owner? Take note the op has stated he has neither the time nor the resources to perform a search for his wife so he is going to need a cheap, fast, and simple means to address the co-ownership of the real property. Got one in your back pocket?
Well disagreement is what this business is all about isn't it. If you acquaint it with disrespect and take exception, then so be it. My apology will come at the heels of yours for the smart ass in back pocket remark.
My posting was not meant to offend but in hopes of alerting the OP that all is not lost simply because his wife has disappeared. That his salvation does not hinge on his pin pointing her whereabouts as in
the only way to sever the ties is to find her - a divorce won't do you any good - you need to start looking for her by whatever means are available, etc.,
But I do take exception to your dismissive attitude about jurisdiction. This is all about jurisdiction which is at the heart of every lawsuit; be it subject matter, in personam or in rem.
Dissolution of the marriage. I take that we are in agreement with this from the U. S. Supreme Court in Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945) that when two spouses live in different states, a valid divorce decree can be granted in any state in which either spouse is domiciled (subject of course to provincial residence requirements). - subject to enacted residence requirements). Which you must agree is an acknowledgement that each state has "jurisdiction" over the status of a marriage in which at least one of spouses resides within the state.
Need it be mentioned that the application of the principle does not require that the forum state have "personal jurisdiction" over the absent spouse; nor that the absent spouse have actual notice of the proceedings nor that his or her whereabouts be known?
Yet your above comments to the OP - if not seen as disputatious of the principle, at least could be confusing to the layperson.
(On top of which you've wrung thimble rigging LdiJ's bell and now he has tacked on his worthless two-cents worth.)
Disposition of the marital home. I haven't entered this discussion totally unarmed. I am aware that there are case calling into doubt the right of the forum state to distribute assets within its borders when lacking personal jurisdiction over an absent spouse. But have also noted that at least some of the case involved intangible and moveable property brought into the state by the petitioner without the consent of the absent spouse. And that there are cases whereby in order to divide marital property the required personal jurisdiction rests with the minimum contacts test. As in the Florida case of Garrett v. Garrett, 668 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1996) where such jurisdiction was denied. But there the facts were not entirely analogous - there being no mention of jointly owned land situated in Florida and the petition wife was seeking other economic relief.
(Ownership of which could aid in the quest for minimum contact.)
On the other hand there is competent authority that the forum court has the authority to make distribution of marital property (real and personal) situated within the state even where personal jurisdiction is lacking.
Prominent and often cited is the Georgia case of Abernathy vs. Abernathy - Supreme Court of Georgia, Case No. S96A1770 (l997).
The essential facts in Abernathy are completely analogous with the case at hand. There it is was ruled in - spite of the lack of personal jurisdiction over the absent wife - that the trial court had not only jurisdiction over the res of the marriage so as to determine the issue of divorce, but in rem jurisdiction over the marital property located within the state as well such as to render a the division of that property. That property consisted of real property and was awarded to the petitioner.
And speaking of "in rem jurisdiction" this from the syllabus in Arndt vs. Griggs U. S. Sp. Ct. 134 U. S. 316:
"A state may provide by statute that the title to real estate within its limits shall be settled and determined by a suit in which the defendant, being a nonresident, is brought into court by publication."
I'm not unconscious of the difficulties in convincing a Florida court to assert in rem jurisdiction over the marital home or how it might be "partitioned" as you quaintly word it. But I didn't make a good living practicing law by telling clients what they could not do!
And you know as well as anyone following this thread that thanks to you and your negativity and ringing LdiJ's bell with his worthless two-cents tacked on further encouraging what may be a futile search, that the OP has left (apparently) totally frustrated believing that his only salvation is locating the whereabouts of his wife!
_______________________
Now if you want to know what I have in my back pocket it is this:
The OP files for divorce; service of process is by substitution (publication); he prays for dissolution of the marriage and that the marital home be awarded to him as his sole and separate property subject to all existing liens and encumbrances which he will assume and hold the wife harmless.
If the court should not exercise jurisdiction over the home in satisfaction of his pray for relief, what happens. I'll tell you what happens, nothing. Except that the home is now held in an estate of co-tenancy.
The OP continues to asserts his equal co-tenant's rights of possession of the home; continues paying the mortgage, taxes, insurance, required maintenance, etc., until a sizeable amount has accumulated. (All post divorce, of course.)
He then sues the ex wife for contribution of her share of the above expenses; serves her by publication (if necessary); obtains a default judgment; then levies execution of his judgment against her interest; bids in his judgment and ends up with a sheriff's deed.
