ANITA M. DELLAVECCHIA, APPELLANT,
v.
CRAIG DELLAVECCHIA, 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.
An ex-wife appealed from a final judgment dissolving her marriage, awarding the ex-husband custody of two minor children, requiring her to pay child support, and awarding him essentially all marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the asset distribution but reversed and remanded the custody and child support determinations because the trial court failed to hear testimony from the children's natural mother and did not address shared parental responsibility.
The court affirmed the distribution of marital assets as not constituting an abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed the custody and child support determinations and remanded for further hearing because the trial court failed to obtain testimony from the children's natural mother and did not make a determination regarding shared parental responsibility. The court also implicitly affirmed the setting aside of the first judgment to the extent it addressed property rights and child support.
[1] A trial court may reconsider and modify a prior final judgment adjudicating property rights and child support upon a motion to set aside a default judgment, to the extent…
[2] An appellate court will affirm a trial court's distribution of marital assets if no abuse of discretion is found, considering factors such as the parties' physical condit…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The best interests of the children is of course the guidepost in any determinations of child custody and support.”
Establishes the primary legal standard for custody and child support determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe ex-husband is permanently disabled. The ex-wife, age 29, is in good physical condition and employable as a medical assistant based on her training…
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 Motion To Set Aside Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
• LEHAN, Judge.
An ex-wife appeals from a final judgment adjudicating property rights and awarding child support to the ex-husband and from the trial court’s order refusing to grant the ex-wife’s motion to set aside a prior final judgment entered against her upon her default except to the extent the prior final judgment adjudicated property rights and child support. The first final judgment had dissolved the marriage, awarded the husband custody of the parties’ two minor children, required the wife to make $1,000 per month child support payments, and awarded the husband essentially 100 percent of the marital assets having an apparent equity value of approximately $64,000. The second final judgment, entered after the first final judgment had been set aside to the above-described extent, reduced the child support payments to be made by the wife to $85.00 per week and again awarded the husband essentially 100 percent of the marital assets. We qualifiedly affirm in part and reverse in part.
The wife does not contest the adjudication that the marriage is dissolved. Nor does the husband contest the setting aside of the first final judgment to the above described extent.
As to the distribution of marital assets, we do not conclude there was an abuse of discretion and therefore affirm in that respect, subject to the qualification referred to below. There was evidence that the husband is permanently disabled and that the 29-year-old wife is in good physical condition and employable by training and experience as a medical assistant. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980).
However, while on the basis of the record on appeal we do not conclude that the trial court erred in its determinations as to custody and child support, there are other considerations to be taken into account. The best interests of the children is of course the guidepost in any determinations of child custody and support. In making those determinations the trial court should have the benefit of the available testimony of the children’s natural mother. Also, no determination was made as to shared parental responsibility. We therefore reverse and remand for further hearing in those respects. See Rhines v. Rhines, 483 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Seibert v. Seibert, 436 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). If upon remand the present determinations as to custody and child support are changed and if the trial court determines that the best interests of the children require a change also in the previously determined distribution of marital assets, the court may change that distribution, any such changes of course being made only in the sound exercise of discretion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. Panzarino, 812 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…a. 4th DCA 1993); Barnett v. Barnett, 718 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Sloan v. Sloan, 604 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Longo, 576 So. 2d at 403; Dellavecchia v. Dellavecchia, 547 So. 2d 287, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Duckworth, 414 So. 2d at 563; Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In making a determination on child custody according to the best interests of the child “guidepost,” the court should have the benefit of t…
-
Sloan v. Sloan, 604 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ion of marriage, entered upon defendant’s default, except that we reverse as to child custody and visitation and remand for evi-dentiary proceedings in that regard. See Longo v. Longo, 576 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Dellavecchia v. Dellavecchia, 547 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Seibert v. Seibert, 436 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Duckworth v. Duckworth, 414 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). LEHAN, C.J., and DANAHY and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.…
-
Lacie Shewmaker v. Shewmaker, 283 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…a. 4th DCA 1993); Barnett v. Barnett, 718 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Sloan v. Sloan, 604 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Longo, 576 So. 2d at 403; Dellavecchia v. Dellavecchia, 547 So. 2d 287, 28[8] (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Duckworth, 414 So. 2d at 563; Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In making a determination on ---PAGE 3--- child custody according to the best interests of the child "guidepost," the court should hav…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Laraine Rose Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Seibert v. Seibert, 436 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Rhines v. Rhines, 483 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)