TAMARA T. DIAZ, F/K/A TAMARA T. ROS, APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC R. ROS, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Because there is a total, embarrassing lack of evidence to support a modification of the custody provisions of the final judgment under applicable principles of law, Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see Muniz v. Muniz, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 293088 (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 3D00-312, opinion filed, March 28, 2001), the order under review, which purports to do so, is reversed and the cause remanded with directions forthwith to restore the minor child of the parties to the appellant mother, to reinstate the custody and support provisions of the final judgment and for other proceedings consistent herewith.
This decision shall take effect immediately without regard to the filing or disposition of any motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Karem Elena Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…were false and which upon the Romos relied to their detriment, we conclude that the Complaint contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentations against Amedex and Cincinnati Equitable. See Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(“The existence of a merger or integration clause, which purports to make oral agreements not incorporated into the written contract unenforceable, does not affect oral representations which are alleged to have fraudulently induced…
-
Advanced Mktg. Sys. Corp. & Douglas Pierce v. ZK Yacht Sales & Alan Charlap, 830 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…t so that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable. See Gen. Aviation, 915 F. 2d at 1042. The trial court also found in favor of appellees on appellants’ claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Appellants argue, citing Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), that “[t]he existence of a merger or integration clause, which purports to make oral agreements not incorporated into the written contract unenforceable, does not affect oral representations which are alleged to have fraudulently…
-
Prieto v. Smook, Inc., 97 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…f the plaintiff can demonstrate that the person promising fu [*918] ture action does so with no intention of performing or with a positive intention not to perform, such a promise may also constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation.” Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So. 2d 1175,1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The evidence does not meet this standard since there is no indication that Prieto did not intend to pay back the loan at the time he promised to pay. See Biscayne Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Guarantee Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 2…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)