LUKE ANTHONY MONASMITH, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE LYNN MONASMITH, FORMER WIFE, 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 court held that an argument regarding a specific statute was not preserved for appellate review because it was not raised in the lower court.
Appellant challenged the trial court's order allowing Appellee to temporarily relocate out-of-state with minor children during dissolution proceedings…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order allowing Appellee to temporarily relocate out-of-state with the minor children during the dissolution proceedings. We affirm.
We find that Appellant’s argument regarding section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), was not preserved for our review. See Graves v. State, 548 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(holding that appellate review is limited to the specific grounds raised below); Parlier v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 622 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(holding that as a general rule of appellate procedure, based on practical necessity and fairness to the opposing party and the trial judge, issues that are not timely raised will not be considered on appeal). Appellant made no mention of section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2006), or its procedural requirements during any proceeding below, or in his motion to stay the trial court’s order in this court. Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of Appellant’s claim on this ground, and affirm the trial court’s order. Appellant’s request to review the factual basis for the trial court’s decision was properly preserved. We affirm without comment.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 977 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…e supervision constituted a willful violation of a substantial condition of the conditional release order, the circuit court could not have reviewed the matter in accordance with the essential requirements of law. See Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 954 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, the final order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the circuit court, which, in turn, remanded the matter to the Parole Commission to determine whether petitioner’s violation was willful and substantial. B…
-
Barrera v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 987 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ntended that the Florida Parole Commission erroneously revoked his conditional release without finding that his violation was a willful violation of a substantial condition of the conditional release order, see Williams v. Florida Parole Commission, 954 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and therefore he was entitled to be reinstated to conditional release. We conclude that the circuit court should have treated the petition for writ of mandamus as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, see Rowe v. State, 765 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Aguilar v. Westchester Gen. Hosp., Inc., 622 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Graves v. State, 548 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)