SALVADOR LANDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GABRIELA LANDA, 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.
Court affirmed mother's right to relocate minor children to Chile following divorce, but reversed the trial court's modification of child support because the issue was not properly noticed for hearing.
A custodial parent may relocate minor children to another country when she has good reason, such as economic opportunity and family support, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the relocation.
[1] Relocation of minor children to another country by custodial parent is permissible when supported by good reason such as economic opportunity and family support, absent i…
[2] Trial court violates due process when it modifies child support without proper notice and hearing on that specific issue.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where the record showed that the mother, as custodial parent of the two minor children, had a good reason for returning to her native home in Chile following the dissolution of the parties' marriage, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting her motion to remove the children from the jurisdiction.”
Opening statement of the court's holding on the relocation issue.
Following dissolution of marriage, the custodial mother lost her job and was offered ownership of a family business in Chile that would provide a high…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Where the record showed that the mother, as custodial parent of the two minor children, had a good reason for returning to her native home in Chile following the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting her motion to remove the children from the jurisdiction.
Shortly after the marriage was dissolved, Mrs. Landa lost her job as a $19,000-a-year secretary and began receiving unemployment benefits. Upon the death of her father she was offered the opportunity to become an owner of a family business in Chile which guaranteed for herself and the children a higher living standard than she could provide as a single parent living in Miami. The children’s father, now remarried and expecting another child, has not offered an increase in support payments to offset the mother’s loss of earnings. Furthermore, living in Chile with other family members, the children would be in a safer and more comfortable environment. See Matilla v. Matilla, 474 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
We reverse that part of the order on review as it relates to the amount of the child-support payments because that subject was not before the court by a pleading or prior notice. Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (trial court violates a litigant s due process rights when it addresses matters not noticed for a hearing).
Matters of scheduled visitation rights, which must be modified in light of the change in the children’s domicile, should be presented first to the trial court.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mast v. Reed, 578 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…Hill v. Hill, 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 233 (Fla.1990); DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1989); Bachman v. Bachman, 539 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Landa v. Landa, 539 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Nissen v. Murphy, 528 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Matilla v. Matilla, 474 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). To do so (in my view), however, requires the Fifth District to recede from our own case law on that issue: Cole v. Cole,…
-
Ferguson v. Baisley, 593 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…derstanding of the underlying rule of law applicable to the present issue as it has developed in recent cases of this court. See Pintado v. Leggett, 545 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (mother permitted to move with child to Virginia); Landa v. Landa, 539 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (same; Chile); Matilla v. Matilla, 474 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same; Michigan); Anderson v. Anderson, 461 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (same; Missouri); see also DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (same; Ne…
-
Mehler v. Mehler, 555 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (trial court erred in denying mother’s petition to relocate to another state where desire to relocate was well intentioned and founded on belief that move was • best for custodial parent and child’s well-being); Landa v. Landa, 539 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting custodial mother’s motion to move to Chile with her children where record showed that mother had good reason for the move); Simon v. Simon, 435 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matilla v. Matilla, 474 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Margulies v. Margulies, 528 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)