DENISE A. DUNA, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDY T. DUNA, 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 affirmed trial court's transfer of custody from mother to father based on substantial change of circumstances and best interests of the child, finding no abuse of discretion where the statement of evidence supported the trial judge's factual findings.
A trial court's custody modification order transferring primary residential custody from mother to father is affirmed when the statement of evidence supports findings of substantial change of circumstances and that the modification serves the child's best interests.
Denise Duna appealed a final order transferring custody of her daughter Brittney from herself to her former husband Randy Duna. The trial court made e…
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 Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Denise Duna appeals from a final order which transfers custody of the parties’ daughter, Brittney, from herself to her former husband, Randy Duna. No transcript appears in the record. However, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4), the court approved and settled a Statement of the Evidence and Proceedings to stand in lieu of the record. In addition, the trial judge made extensive findings of fact.
Based on the Statement of Evidence, we think the former husband sustained his burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances and that the best interest of the child will be served by making Randy her primary residential custodian.
On appeal, Denise challenges various findings of the trial court. However, we cannot resolve conflicting factual issues contrary to the findings of the trial judge, nor can we conclude his determinations were not supported by the evidence without a transcript. Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In this case, the substitute for the record approved by the court below does in fact support the trial judge’s fact findings and his ultimate decision in this case. Thus, there is no ground upon which we can conclude the trial judge abused his discretion.1
Accordingly, this case is AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur. . McIntyre v. McIntyre, 452 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ildiko S. Deak v. Deak, 715 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…[*1177] PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Duna v. Duna, 707 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Wolfson v. Unemployment Comm., 649 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Parlier v. Eagle-Pictier Industries, Inc., 622 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Levine v. Arvida Corp., 405 So.…
Authorities Cited
- McINTYRE v. Nance Ruth McINTYRE, 452 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)