MEGAN LONSDALE
v.
MARIO HANY ELBANNA
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 appellate court reversed a trial court's order modifying a father's timesharing with his daughter. The modification order was flawed because it did not explicitly state the required findings of a substantial change in circumstances and that the modification was in the child's best interests.
Yes, the trial court erred. The modification order failed on its face to state the necessary findings regarding a substantial change in circumstances and the child's best interests, which are required by statute for modifying timesharing schedules.
[1] A trial court's modification of a timesharing schedule must include explicit findings that a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has occurred…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Because the modification order, on its face, failed to state that any substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances had occurred after the entry of the injunction order or that modifying the injunction order would be in the daughter's best interests, we must reverse the modification order.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA domestic violence injunction order had previously limited the father's timesharing with his daughter to supervised visits. The trial court later ent…
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 Substantial And Material Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
LUCAS, Judge. Megan Lonsdale appeals a circuit court order temporarily modifying Mario Elbanna's timesharing with the couple's minor daughter. Not long before the modification order, a five-year
domestic violence injunction order had been entered against Mr. Elbanna, which, in pertinent part, had limited Mr. Elbanna's timesharing with the daughter to supervised visitations.1 See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2020) ("[A] time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child."); J.G.J. v. J.H., 318 So. 3d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("We also agree with the mother the trial court erred in modifying the timesharing without a finding of a substantial change in circumstances, in addition to the1 A related criminal case was pending against Mr. Elbanna at the time the appeal was filed.
best interest of the child."); Romeo v. Romeo, 310 So. 3d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (holding that final judgment did not include a finding that there had been a "substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances" that warranted modification of parenting plan and that "[t]he failure to include that finding—perhaps the most important determination a family court must make in a modification proceeding—will typically require reversal of a judgment that modifies a prior judgment's parenting plan" (quoting § 61.13(3))); Hollis v. Hollis, 276 So. 3d 77, 79-80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (reversing modification order and quoting section 61.13(3)).2 BLACK and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.2 This error is apparent on the face of the order; so the fact that the appellant only provided the transcript for the second day of the two-day evidentiary hearing does not preclude appellate relief in this case. However, our holding is limited to this facial error. We find no merit in any of Ms. Lonsdale's remaining arguments in this appeal.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Logreira v. Efrain Logreira, 322 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…ufficient grounds to justify a modification. See Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So. 2d 698, 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Sanchez v. Hernandez, 45 So. 3d 57, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Ring v. Ring, 834 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also J.G.J. v. J.H., 318 So. 3d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Albert v. Rogers, 57 So. 3d 233, 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because the latter prong is dispositive, we need not weigh in on this argument. The best interests of the child is the polestar consideration in time- sharing decisi…
-
Lonsdale v. Elbanna, 318 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…Stat. (2020) ("[A] time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child."); J.G.J. v. J.H., 318 So. 3d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("We also agree with the mother the trial court erred in modifying the timesharing without a finding of a substantial change in circumstances, in addition to the 1 A related criminal case was pending against Mr. Elbanna at th…1 / 2
-
Idelson v. Jayson Carmer (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…lationship and lack of effective communication do not constitute a material change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody."). In the absence of the requisite findings, we are compelled to reverse the judgment below. See Romeo v. Romeo, 310 So. 3d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("The failure to include [a finding that there had been a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances that warranted a modification to the parenting plan]—perhaps the most important determination a famil…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hollis v. Hollis, 2017 WL 2983290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
- Lonsdale v. Elbanna, 318 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)