ANN MARIE OFFERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL ALAN OFFERMAN, 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.
The court granted the wife's emergency motion for a stay of the trial court's order awarding temporary custody of the minor children to the husband without notice.
The husband filed for dissolution and then sought temporary custody of the children without notice to the wife, alleging she might flee the jurisdicti…
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 Temporary Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ann Marie Offerman (“WIFE”) has filed an emergency motion for stay of order awarding temporary custody of minor children to husband without notice to wife pending appellate review. This court has jurisdiction.1 This court entered a show cause order requiring Paul Alan Offerman (“HUSBAND”) to respond. We also stayed the trial court proceedings pending disposition of appellant’s motion. This court has reviewed the motion filed by the WIFE and considered the response filed by the HUSBAND. We grant relief and stay the order awarding temporary custody.
The HUSBAND filed a dissolution action in Orange County in the Ninth Judicial Circuit in June 1994. Subsequent to filing the dissolution action, the HUSBAND also filed a motion requesting that he be awarded temporary custody of the two minor children without notice to the WIFE of his motion. In the motion, the HUSBAND alleged that if the WIFE was given notice, she might flee the jurisdiction of the court. The trial judge entered the order awarding temporary custody of the children to the HUSBAND and determined conditions of visitation. In the order, the trial judge did allow the WIFE “to receive an immediate hearing concerning the terms and conditions of [the] custody/visitation order.”
We grant the motion and stay the order awarding the HUSBAND temporary custody of the children. The children shall be returned to the WIFE. Forte v. Torres, 409 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
MOTION FOR STAY GRANTED; REMANDED with instructions.
GOSHORN, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(f).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…sh the Former Wife had a likelihood of success on the merits. Coupled with our additional concerns regarding the children's schooling and their best interests, greater harm could result if the status quo were not preserved. See Offerman v. Offerman, 643 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(granting motion to stay temporary custody order). The facts raised by the Former Wife in support of her motion for a stay are most troubling, and we emphasize that this Court will not tolerate the improper use of visitation to ma…
-
State v. Ducharme, 881 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ule 9.310 to issue a stay pending review to preserve the status quo until the issues raised in the main appeal are resolved. See Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389, 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), review denied, 763 So. 2d 1044 (Fla.2000); Offerman v. Offerman, 643 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). As the court noted in Perez: This Court has authority to issue á stay under Rule 9.310®, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, for the purpose of preserving the status quo during an appellate proceeding. Once a stay is issued,…
-
Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…tay re-1 [*773] quests filed with the Court as an initial matter, pursuant to its jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.810(f) (2012), see, e.g., Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389, 391 & n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Offerman v. Offerman, 643 So. 2d 1184, 1184 & n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), we decline to exercise that jurisdiction here. For the reasons set forth above, we deny the appellant’s motion for stay and appellant’s motion for mandamus, without prejudice. In order to allow the appellant to obt…
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
- Forte v. Torres, 409 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)