FRANCIS L. BERGER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORENCE BERGER, 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 the former wife was not collaterally estopped from presenting evidence regarding child custody and visitation, and any error in admitting expert testimony was harmless.
Appellant appealed an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage concerning child custody and visitation. He argued the trial court erred by al…
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 Collateral Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Francis L. Berger appeals an Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage dated January 21, 2000 that primarily addressed issues of child custody and visitation. Mr. Berger claims that the trial judge erred by allowing testimony with respect to abuse because the issue was previously determined in a dependency action in which the same parties participated. We disagree.
The dependency action was brought by a state agency and the issues before the court did not concern child visitation and custody. The former wife was not entitled to manage the litigation in the dependency action and could not require the state agency to present testimony of witnesses and/or any other evidence that she may have desired. Therefore, she was not collaterally estopped from presenting similar evidence in support of her case involving the custody and visitation of the parties’ children.
We have also considered Mr. Berger’s claim that the testimony of the wife’s expert witness, a psychologist, should have been disregarded by the trial judge because the expert’s investigation and interviews were limited and flawed. The record reflects other evidence to support the judgment, and if the evidence was admitted through error, it was harmless error. Finally, we wish to make it clear that our affirmance of the judgment is limited to this appeal and is not a determination of the outstanding issues in the appeal pending before this court in case number 5D00-1539.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, PETERSON, and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berger v. Berger, 795 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…of filing petitions for modification, giving due notice to both parties, and a determination based on the best interests of the children, after a full hearing on both sides. REVERSED. PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . Berger v. Berger, 788 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). . See Manuel v. Manuel, 489 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (where final dissolution judgment provided for visitation every third weekend, court’s action in awarding four-month, extended visitation to father after mother relocat…
-
Berger v. Berger, 813 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…mpbell, 436 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (under Rule 9.600(c), the trial court has “a limited jurisdiction ... calculated to protect the party seeking or needing relief until the appellate court decides the issue on appeal”). In Berger v. Berger, 788 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“Berger I ”), we affirmed the amended final judgment, which awarded primary residential responsibility to the mother. Thus, the order on appeal awarding temporary custody to the father was superceded by Berger I. Any doubts abou…