WARREN REED WROBLESKI, APPELLANT,
v.
CATHERINE ANN WROBLESKI A/K/A CATHERINE WAGNER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in declaring a prior order modifying visitation rights unenforceable solely based on the changed residency of a party.
[1] An order modifying visitation rights based on a party's residency in a different state remains enforceable even after the party returns to the original state.
[2] A trial court cannot impermissibly modify a prior order of visitation without a proper petition for modification being filed by a party.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a dissolution, a visitation order was modified to grant the father one month of summer visitation when the mother moved out of state. When t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Warren Wrobleski appeals from an order vacating an order that had modified his visitation rights with the minor daughter of the parties. We reverse.
The parties’ marriage was dissolved pursuant to final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered September 7, 1982. The final judgment incorporated an amended property settlement agreement which included, among other things, a provision regarding the husband’s visitation rights. After the wife moved to California, a petition for modification was filed by the husband, and an order modifying the original final judgment was entered granting the former husband a period of visitation consisting of one month during the summer. Thereafter, the wife returned to Florida. The former husband then filed a motion of enforcement requesting enforcement of his right to visitation as set forth in the prior order of modification. The trial court denied the motion of enforcement declaring inter alia that the order which modified the final judgment is unenforceable because the premise on which that order was based, that is, the former wife’s residency in California, no longer existed.
The effect of holding the order of modification unenforceable is either (1) to leave the husband with no enforceable right of visitation or (2) to reinstate the visitation rights established by the final judgment. The former alternative is obviously an unsatisfactory result given the public policy of encouraging contact between noncustodial parents and their children for the best interests of the children. On the other hand the second alternative in effect constitutes an impermissible modification of the order which modified the final judgment entered without a petition for modification being filed by either party. See Taylor v. Taylor, 376 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to permit the parties to file such additional pleadings as may be appropriate to their own interests in visitation and in the best interests of the child.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.