WAYNE STRICKLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN GAY, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's modification of a custody order, finding no competent substantial evidence of a substantial or material change in circumstances required to modify the prior custody arrangement.
A trial court abuses its discretion in modifying a custody order when there is no competent substantial evidence of a substantial or material change in circumstances since the entry of the last custody order.
[1] To modify a prior custody order, the party seeking modification must establish a substantial or material change in circumstances since entry of the last custody order, an…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWayne Strickland appealed an order changing the primary residence of the parties' child. The trial court had modified a prior custody order.…
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 Petition For Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Wayne Strickland, appeals an order changing the primary residence of the parties’ child. Upon a careful review of the entire record, we find that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of a substantial or material change in circumstances since the entry of the last custody order.1 Thus, Appellee failed to satisfy her extraordinary burden, and the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the most recent custody order. See, e.g., Young v. Young, 732 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Kilgore v. Kilgore, 729 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Bartolotta v. Barto-lotta, 687 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Holmes v. Greene, 649 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Bridges v. Bridges, 625 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to enter an order denying Appellee’s petition for modification.
ALLEN, C.J., MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . Because we find that the changes in circumstances since the entry of the most recent custody order were insufficient to constitute a substantial or material change in circumstances, we need not address the trial court’s consideration of matters that pre-dated the most recent order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Bartolotta v. Bartolotta, 687 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Kilgore v. Kilgore, 729 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Young v. Young, 732 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Holmes v. Greene, 649 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Attie Marie Bridges v. Bridges, 625 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)