PATRICIA A. ALDAY, APPELLANT,
v.
DELBERT D. GLEASON, 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.
Patricia Alday appeals a final judgment modifying a dissolution of marriage that designated her ex-husband Delbert as primary residential parent of their son and awarded him retroactive child support. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's custody determination, retroactive child support award, or denial of attorney's fees.
The appellate court affirmed all aspects of the trial court's judgment. Without a trial transcript, the court could not determine whether the trial court made a required best-interest finding, but Patricia failed to raise this issue in the trial court. The retroactive child support award was proper under Florida Statute section 61.30(ll)(c). The record did not support Patricia's claim that unrequested relief was awarded, and adoption of the husband's proposed judgment was not harmful error. The denial of attorney's fees was within the trial court's discretion.
[1] A trial court's designation of a primary residential parent requires a finding that the designation is in the child's best interests, but this finding may be made on the…
[2] Retroactive child support may be awarded prior to the filing of a petition for modification under certain circumstances as provided by statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because there is no transcript of the trial, we are unable to determine whether the trial court made a finding on the record during the trial that it was in the best interests of the parties' child that Delbert be designated the primary custodial parent.”
Establishes the procedural obstacle to reviewing the best-interest finding claim and notes that the appellant failed to raise the issue in the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia and Delbert Gleason were divorced. Delbert filed a petition for modification seeking to change custody of their son and obtain retroactive ch…
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 Retroactive Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Patricia Alday, i/k/a Patricia Gleason [“Patricia”], appeals a final judgment of modification of a dissolution of marriage. She raises five issues. First, she contends that, in designating Delbert Gleason [“Delbert”], her ex-husband, as primary residential parent of their son, the trial court did not make the required finding that it was in the child’s best interests. Second, she maintains that the trial court erred as a matter of law by awarding retroactive child support for two years prior to the filing of Delbert’s petition for modification. Third, Patricia asserts that the trial court erred in awarding certain relief that she claims was not specifically requested in the pleadings. Fourth, she complains that the trial court erred in adopting verbatim the final judgment prepared by Delbert’s attorney. Finally, Patricia maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award her attorney’s fees for defending against Delbert’s motions for contempt. We affirm.
Because there is no transcript of the trial, we are unable to determine whether the trial court made a finding on the record during the trial that it was in the best interests of the parties’ child that Delbert be designated the primary custodial parent. See Clark v. Clark, 825 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Nor did Patricia complain of such an omission in the trial court. Similarly, because, section 61.30(ll)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), allows the trial court, in some circumstances, to award retroactive child support prior to the time the petition/motion was filed, we have no basis to reverse that award.
The record does not support Patricia’s contention that the trial court awarded Delbert relief not contained in the pleadings. Nor do we find harmful error in the trial court’s use of the husband’s proposed judgment. Patricia did not demonstrate that the final judgment was inconsistent with any earlier pronouncement of the trial court. See Ford Motor Co. v. Starling, 721 So. 2d 335, 337 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(citing White v. White, 686 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); Polizzi v. Polizzi, 600 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Patricia’s request for attorney’s fees. AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…o. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Clayton v. Clayton, 442 So. 2d 310, 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979)); see also Pignataro v. Rutledge, 841 So. 2d 636, 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Alday v. Gleason, 853 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The former husband does submit the statement of evidence that was approved by the trial court pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4). We conclude, however, that [*392] the statement of evidence — which can best be described as frag…
Authorities Cited
- Polizzi v. Polizzi, 600 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Clark v. Clark, 825 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- White v. White, 686 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Starling, 721 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)