SHERRY BLAKNEY, F/K/A SHERRY MARKS, APPELLANT,
v.
RAY ANTHONY MARKS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's denial of mother's motion to relocate minor children to Minnesota, finding the trial court made erroneous factual findings about the father's employment prospects and the family's potential lifestyle improvement.
A trial court's denial of a parent's relocation motion must be reversed when based on erroneous factual findings regarding the relocating parent's spouse's employment status and the children's potential lifestyle changes.
[1] A trial court's relocation decision based on erroneous factual findings regarding a parent's employment status and the children's potential lifestyle improvement must be…
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“The trial court erred in finding to the contrary that Blakney's husband was "attempting" to find employment in Minnesota and that there was "no evidence to indicate that the former wife's, and therefore the children's, lifestyle would improve in any manner."”
Court's explanation of the trial court's erroneous factual findings that formed the basis for denying the relocation motion.
Blakney sought to relocate her minor children to Minnesota where her husband had obtained full-time employment with higher wages and expanded opportun…
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 Child Relocation cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order denying Blakney’s motion to relocate the parties’ minor children to Minnesota and enjoining her from doing so. The record reflects that at the time of the hearing, Blak-ney’s husband had obtained a full-time job in Minnesota with a higher hourly wage and expanded opportunities (as opposed to his part-time job at a lower hourly wage in Florida), and purchased a mobile home in anticipation of the arrival of Blakney and the children. The trial court erred in finding to the contrary that Blakney’s husband was “attempting” to find employment in Minnesota and that there was “no evidence to indicate that the former wife’s, and therefore the children’s, lifestyle would improve in any manner.” The trial court’s denial of Blak-ney’s relocation motion is based, at least in part, on these erroneous findings.
We therefore must reverse and remand to the trial court for reconsideration in light of these errors and the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993). On remand, the trial court may receive such further evidence, if any, that it requires or that the parties wish to submit.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION.
MICKLE and BENTON, JJ., concur.