MARVIN D. YEATES, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JANET L. YEATES N/K/A JANET L. KNAPP, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Marvin D. Yeates, Jr., appeals an order denying his supplemental petition to modify the parties’ final judgment of dissolution of marriage to change the primary residence of their minor child from his former wife’s home to his own. Applying the “detriment” standard as articulated in Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), the circuit court entered a thorough and thoughtful final judgment denying the requested relief.
Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court decided Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928, 934 (Fla.2005), holding that “[rjequir-ing proof of detriment is inconsistent with this Court’s prior holdings and is not an element of the substantial change test necessary to modify a child custody award.” The record before us does not clearly reflect that the circuit court would have denied the modification petition if it had not applied the detriment standard. For this reason, we reverse and remand to the circuit court to reconsider the petition in light of Wade. If the circuit court deems it necessary or advisable, it may take additional evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Smith, 927 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…nd. Due to the passage of time since the entry of the trial court’s order and in light of the Wade decision, on remand the trial court shall allow the parties to present additional evidence to resolve the modification petition. See Yeates v. Yeates, 915 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA2005). RES JUDICATA AS TO RELOCATION ISSUE Finally, we address the parties’ arguments as to the doctrine of res judicata. The Former Wife contends that the relocation issue was resolved by the April 2004 order, which was not appea…
-
Briscoe v. Briscoe, 927 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ore us does not clearly reflect that the circuit court would have denied the modification petition if it had [*114] not applied requirements inconsistent with the supreme court’s holding in Wade. Reversal is therefore required. See Yeates v. Yeates, 915 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). On remand, the trial court shall reconsider the petition in light of the supreme court’s decision in Wade. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005)
- Karie Lynn Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)