CHRISTOPHER M. OWENS, APPELLANT,
v.
KIMBERLY A. STALLINGS, 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.
Christopher Owens appealed a trial court order awarding primary residential custody of the parties' daughter to Kimberly Stallings. The appellate court affirmed the custody determination but reversed and remanded regarding the vagueness of the visitation schedule's reference to unspecified "guidelines."
The court affirmed the custody award, finding no abuse of discretion because reasonable persons could have awarded primary custody to either parent. The court reversed the visitation provision, finding it insufficiently specific because the trial court failed to identify or attach the referenced "guidelines" to the order.
[1] A trial court's custody determination will not be reversed on appeal unless it is shown that no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.
[2] A trial court's order for visitation that refers to "standard non-local visitation" and "guidelines" is insufficient if the specific guidelines are not identified or atta…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“if reasonable men can differ regarding the propriety of the trial court's action, the action is not unreasonable and there is no abuse of discretion”
Establishes the standard for reviewing custody determinations for abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Owens and Kimberly Stallings were parents involved in a custody dispute over their daughter. The trial court awarded primary residential c…
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 Child Custody Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Christopher Owens appeals from an order awarding Kimberly Stallings primary residential custody of the parties’ daughter. Owens argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded primary residential custody to Stallings. We disagree. It is evident from the record that either parent could serve as primary custodial parent. However, the trial court had to choose between the two parents, and we cannot say that no reasonable person could have awarded primary residential custody to the mother. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court’s custody determination. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980) (holding that if reasonable men can differ regarding the propriety of the trial court’s action, the action is not unreasonable and there is no abuse of discretion).
We also disagree with Owens’ contention that the trial court failed to establish a visitation schedule. The trial court ordered “no less than standard non-local visitation,” and specified that Owens should at a minimum have visitation every other weekend with holiday visitations to occur “as set forth in the guidelines.” This fulfilled the trial court’s obligation to decide the matter of visitation. However, we agree with Owens that the order needs to be more specific regarding the guidelines the parties are to follow. The trial court did not specify which “guidelines” it was referring to, nor are there any guidelines attached to the court’s order. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the trial court to attach to the order the “guidelines” it is requiring the parties to follow.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and GREEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phoenix Holding, LLC v. Martinez, 27 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…17, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “When analyzing a trial court’s exercise of its discretion, the appellate court is to determine whether ‘reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court.’ ” Ingorvaia v. Horton, 816 So. 2d 1266, 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980)). “If reasonable persons could differ, then the court’s action was not an abuse of discretion.” Id. “It is established that a judicial sale may be set aside…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)