SHARON D. BRYANT, APPELLANT,
v.
GREG BRYANT, 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.
Sharon Bryant appeals an order denying her petition to relocate her minor child to Louisiana and modifying custody to the father if she did not return to Florida. The appellate court affirmed the denial of relocation but reversed the trial court's requirement that Sharon reside specifically in the Lakemont Elementary School District, instead requiring only that she reside within the four-county Central Florida area to maintain primary custody.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the relocation petition but reversed the requirement that Sharon reside specifically in the Lakemont Elementary School District. Sharon is only required to reside within the four-county Central Florida area (Orange, Osceola, Seminole, or Lake County) to maintain primary residential custody.
[1] An appellate court's review is limited to the pleadings, judgment, post-judgment orders, and arguments of counsel when no transcript of the hearing exists.
[2] The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error, and in the absence of an adequate record on appeal, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous must be affirmed…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Narrowing the geographical area in which Sharon must reside in order to maintain primary custody violates the same provision of the settlement agreement relied upon by the trial court in denying Sharon's petition to change her residence to Louisiana.”
Establishes the central legal principle that the trial court contradicted itself by imposing a more restrictive geographical requirement than what the settlement agreement specified.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharon and Greg Bryant were divorced under a marital settlement agreement requiring the primary residence be maintained in Orange, Osceola, Seminole, …
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 To Modify Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Sharon D. Bryant appeals an order denying her petition to modify a December 18, 2002 final judgment dissolving her marriage to Greg Bryant. Specifically, she requested that their pre-judgment marital settlement agreement, adopted by the dissolution judgment, be modified to allow her to relocate the parties’ minor child to Louisiana and eliminate the requirement that the primary residence be maintained in Orange, Osceola, Seminole or Lake County, Florida. The order also changes the primary residential responsibility from Sharon to Greg unless Sharon, who had already relocated her residence to Louisiana leaving the child in Florida with Greg, returned to Florida within sixty days and relocated within the Orlando area in the Lakemont Elementary School District.
Because no transcript exists of the hearing in which Sharon’s petition was considered along with Greg’s petition to change primary residential responsibility if Sharon relocated to Louisiana, our review is limited to the pleadings, judgment dissolving the marriage, post-judgment orders and arguments of counsel. Sharon, as the appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating error, and in the absence of an adequate record on appeal, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous must be affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
The record does not reflect that any attempt was made to reconstruct the record as allowed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court after our review that was limited by an absence of a record, except for the trial court’s requirement that Sharon must relocate to the Orlando area in the Lakemont' Elementary School District if she is to retain primary residential custody of her child. Greg’s pleadings make no such request, and neither the settlement agreement nor the judgment dissolving the marriage requires a residence within such a limited geographical area. The only residential requirement as specified in the settlement agreement is that the primary residence be maintained in Orange, Osceola, Seminole or Lake County, Florida. Narrowing the geographical area in which Sharon must reside in order to maintain primary custody violates the same provision of the settlement agreement relied upon by the trial court in denying Sharon’s petition to change her residence to Louisiana.
The October 7, 2003 order denying the relocation is affirmed with the exception of the requirement that Sharon be required to relocate to the Orlando area in the Lakemont Elementary School District if she is to continue as the primary residential parent. She is only required to relocate to the four-county Central Florida area within sixty days of the date of this order if she is to continue as the primary residential parent.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maslow v. Julianne M. Edwards, 886 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…. In this case, there is no transcript of the proceedings. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error, and in the absence of an adequate record on appeal, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous must be affirmed. Bryant v. Bryant, 882 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Without a transcript of the proceedings below, review is limited to errors of law that are apparent on the face of the record. Fugina v. Fugina, 874 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We find that only one of Maslow’s arguments h…
-
J.N.S. v. A.M.A., 194 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…olence and mental health issues. Given these opposing findings and the inadequate record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that equal time-sharing is in the best interests of the children. See Bryant v. Bryant, 882 So. 2d 1066, 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[I]n the absence of an adequate record on appeal, a judgment that is not fundamentally erroneous must be affirmed.”). We do find error, though, in the trial court’s application of the child-support guidelines.5 The trial…
-
Echezarreta v. Echezarreta, 944 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…to return to Miami-Dade County so that the children may continue to attend their present school, it may, at the least, be very difficult for the father to establish the prerequisites for a change of primary physical residence. See Bryant v. Bryant, 882 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Mehler v. Mehler, 555 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Zugda v. Gomez, 553 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Muniz v. Muniz, 789 So. 2d 370, 379-80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(Schwartz, C.J., dissenting in part).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)