TROY EDRINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
JOANNE EDRINGTON, 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.
A father appeals a trial court's custody order establishing rotating custody with no designated primary residential parent, and the denial of his motion for rehearing based on newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirms, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in applying the best interests standard or in denying the rehearing motion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in either respect. The trial court properly applied the best interests standard to the facts presented at the final hearing, and the newly discovered evidence would not have changed the result since the trial court had already discounted the abuse allegations.
[1] A trial court's child custody determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] The "best interests" standard governs the determination of shared parental responsibility and primary residence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, sets forth a "best interests" standard for determining shared parental responsibility and primary residence.”
Establishes the legal standard governing custody determinations in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTroy and Joanne Edrington were parties to a custody dispute involving their children. The trial court conducted a hearing and made detailed factual fi…
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 Primary Residential Parent cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
The father, Troy Edrington, appeals a final judgment providing for rotating custody of the parties’ children and determining that neither party would be designated as the primary residential parent. The father also appeals the trial court’s subsequent order denying his motion for rehearing based upon a claim of newly discovered evidence. We affirm.
The appellate court reviews a trial court’s child custody determination for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Hamilton, 922 So. 2d 263, 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, sets forth a “best interests” standard for determining shared parental responsibility and primary residence.
Given the broad discretion of the trial court in custody matters, we do not find any abuse of that discretion in a review of this record. The trial court made detailed factual findings on the record and considered various positive and negative things that both parents had done. Further, the trial court specifically found that this was a deeply bitter custody battle and that neither parent was able to promote the children’s relationship with the other parent. We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s application of section 61.13(3) to the facts before it at the time of the final hearing.
With respect to the claim that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on the father’s motion for rehearing based upon newly discovered evidence, we likewise conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. That evidence consisted of an after-trial recantation by the parties’ child of allegations of abuse by another child, which figured prominently in the trial. Even at trial, however, the veracity of the allegations was questioned.
A motion for rehearing based on newly discovered evidence should be granted when: 1) it appears that the new evidence is such that it will probably change the result of the proceedings, 2) the evidence has been discovered since the trial, 3) the evidence could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence, 4) the evidence is material to the issue, 5) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching. See Whitley v. Warren, 884 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). This court reviews the denial of a motion for rehearing based on newly discovered evidence for an abuse of discretion. Id.
In denying the motion for rehearing, the trial court noted that it had discounted the allegations of abuse and that the newly discovered evidence would have no bearing on its decision. Thus, the trial court’s order showed that the evidence would not have changed the result of the proceedings. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…’s determination regarding the relocation of a minor child is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Norris v. Heckerman, 972 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing Manyari v. Manyan, 958 So. 2d 512, 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), Edrington v. Edrington, 945 So. 2d 608, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and Landingham v. Landingham, 685 So. 2d 946, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)). However, issues involving the interpretation of a statute are reviewed de novo. B.Y. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004).…
-
Layton E. Norris v. Amie C. Heckerman, 972 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ws the trial court’s determination regarding relocation of minor children for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Landingham v. Landingham, 685 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Manyan v. Manyari, 958 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Edrington v. Edrington, 945 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Although the trial court did not make certain critical findings regarding several of the statutory factors, this was the result of the parties’ failure to present evidence on such factors. Based upon the limited evidence before…
-
Nastasi v. Thomas, 88 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ence to grant relief under Rule 1.540(b). “A motion for rehearing based on newly discovered evidence should be granted when ... it appears that new evidence is such that it will probably change the result of the proceedings.” Edrington v. Edrington, 945 So. 2d 608, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Evidence that comes into existence after the court determines non-compliance with a settlement agreement cannot possibly change the outcome of a decision as to whether a party is in compliance with an agreement as of the da…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elba Whitley and Henry Whitley v. Warren, 884 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 922 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)