JEKTOR AYALA
v.
JARISEL VEGA
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 affirmed a lower court's decision granting a father's petition to relocate, despite the father's argument that the modification of the timesharing arrangement to give the mother majority custody violated his due process rights. The court found the father waived this argument by failing to object and by participating in the trial on the modification issue.
No, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. The father waived his due process argument because the mother requested majority timesharing in her answer and during the trial, and the father did not object to the modification issue being tried.
[1] A court may grant relief not explicitly requested in a pleading if the issue is tried by consent.
[2] A party waives a due process objection to unpled relief by failing to object when the issue is tried.
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 intelligence“Granting unrequested relief absent proper notice is a violation of due process.”
The court cites this principle to frame the father's argument.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father petitioned to relocate with the parties' child. The magistrate recommended granting the relocation but modifying the 50/50 timesharing to g…
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 Petition To Relocate cases and more on FLexlaw
GERBER, J.
The father appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment on the father’s petition to relocate from Broward County to Palm Coast. The final judgment ratified a magistrate’s report which had recommended granting the father’s relocation petition, but changing the parties’ previously agreed-upon 50/50 timesharing arrangement to the mother having majority timesharing in Broward County.
The father primarily argues the circuit court abused its discretion in modifying the parties’ previously agreed-upon 50/50 timesharing, because the mother never filed a pleading seeking modification, and the father did not try the modification issue by consent, thus violating his due process rights. See Romero v. Brabham, 300 So. 3d 665, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“Granting unrequested relief absent proper notice is a violation of due process.”) (citations omitted); Bailey v. Bailey, 227 So. 3d 768, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“[W]e agree with the former wife that the trial court erred in requiring the parties to equally split the responsibility of transportation for timesharing because that issue was not pled or tried by consent.”).
We disagree with the father’s argument. The record indicates the mother’s answer requested that she be given majority timesharing.
Further, during the trial, the mother, like the father, requested majority timesharing. At no point during or after the trial did the father object on the ground that the mother had not filed a pleading requesting that she be given majority timesharing. So even if the mother’s answer had not requested that she be given majority timesharing, the father tried that issue by consent.
The father’s remaining arguments lack merit and do not require further discussion. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s final judgment. However, our affirmance is without prejudice to the father filing another petition seeking to relocate back to Broward County and resume the parties’ previously agreed-upon 50/50 timesharing arrangement, as the father had alternatively suggested during the final hearing. We take no position on the merits of such a petition.
Affirmed.
CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jektor Ayala v. Jarisel Vega (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 227 So. 3d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)