JORGE CARDELLE, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON CARDELLE, 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 held that even if the trial court applied the wrong standard, the ruling denying modification of custody will be affirmed if the correct result was reached based on the evidence.
Following a divorce, the former husband sought to modify custody and terminate support. The trial court denied his petition, finding the former wife w…
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 For Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the former husband, appeals from a post dissolution order denying his petition for modification of custody and termination of support obligations.
Appellant and appellee, the former wife, were divorced in 1990. Appellee was awarded primary residential custody of the parties’ minor daughter. Appellant was ordered to pay both child support and rehabilitative alimony payments to appellee.
Subsequently, the appellant petitioned the court for modification of the primary residence of the child and appellee petitioned for permission to relocate to North Carolina with her new husband and the minor child. The trial court conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing and made written findings. Appellant has asserted three points as error. We deem only one to merit discussion.
The trial court denied appellant’s motion for modification of custody by finding that the evidence had failed to establish that appellee was unfit to have primary residential custody of the child. Appellant asserts this as error. We agree that on a motion for change of custody, the question is not whether the custodial parent is unfit. Rather, the moving party has the burden to prove that a substantial and material change in circumstance has occurred since the dissolution and that the welfare of the child would be pro moted by the change in custody. Gutierrez v. Medina, 613 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Although the trial court applied the wrong standard, we must nevertheless affirm the trial court’s ruling. Based upon the record before us, it is clear that the petitioner did not meet his burden of proof to justify a change in custody. Where a trial court reaches the correct decision even if for the wrong reason, the decision will be affirmed. Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…aditional two-part test — and make no reference to detriment. See Teller v. Richert, 744 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Skirko v. Skirko, 677 So. 2d 885, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Good v. Good, 664 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cardelle v. Cardelle, 645 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Gutierrez v. Medina, 613 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Hill v. Hill, 611 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Sherman v. Sherman 558 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Gaber v. Gaber, 5…
-
Tanner v. Beck, 907 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…s in the various transcripts highlight the need for us to defer to the discretion of the trial court even if it reached the right result for the wrong reason. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Levine, 837 So. 2d 363 (Fla.2002); Cardelle v. Cardelle, 645 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The appellants have simply failed in their duty to provide us with an adequate and/or credible record to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152…
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 741 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…urt’s decision. See Florida Auto. Dealers Indus. Benefit Trust v. Small, 592 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Where a trial court reaches the correct decision even if for the wrong reason, the decision will be affirmed.” Cardelle v. Cardelle, 645 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972); In re Estate of Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1970); Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Goodman v. Goodman, 204 So. 2d 21, 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Here part…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Norwood K. Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Gutierrez v. Medina, 613 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)