THOMAS E. HANNA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LYNN A. SCHMIDT, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for primary residential parent and increasing child support, but erred in reducing visitation and enforcing an oral mediation agreement.
The parties litigated issues of child custody, support, visitation, and attorney's fees. The trial court denied the father's petition for primary resi…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On the main appeal, we affirm the denial of appellant’s petition to become the primary residential parent and also the increase in appellant’s child support obligation because the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); § 61.30(b), Fla. Stat. (1996).
However, we reverse reduction of the appellant’s visitation rights as appellee did not seek same in her pleadings. See Childress v. Childress, 309 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Although the trial court was not bound by any stipulation or agreement between the parents, the trial court erred in modifying its earlier order of visitation. See Lewis v. Lewis, 665 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Moreover, on the cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s order granting appel-lanl/cross-appellee’s motion to enforce an oral mediation agreement because it was never reduced to writing nor signed by the parties. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.740(f)(1); City of Delray Beach v. Keiser, 699 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
We do so, however, without prejudice to appellee to raise issues of accord and satis faction or estoppel. Appellee alleges that the agreement struck in mediation as to attorney’s fees was fully performed by acceptance of the payments made pursuant to the settlement. The trial court should be allowed to consider such claims in any further proceedings.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Lewis v. Ester Lewis, 665 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- City OF Delray Beach v. Keiser, 699 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Childress v. Childress, 309 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)