ALEXIS COOPER, APPELLANT,
v.
MATTHEW COOPER, 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.
In a post-judgment family law appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's modification of child visitation provisions but partially reversed the sanctions award, holding that the former wife could not be held jointly and severally liable for sanctions arising from her trial counsel's misconduct in which she played no role.
The court affirmed the modification of visitation because the mediated settlement agreement specifically contemplated increased co-parenting over time, the judgment was supported by competent substantial evidence, and the modification did not constitute a prohibited rotating custody arrangement. The court affirmed sanctions against trial counsel individually but reversed and vacated the joint and several liability imposed against the former wife, finding no evidence she caused, aided, or abetted the sanctionable conduct.
[1] A modification of child visitation provisions in a dissolution of marriage case is permissible when the original mediated settlement agreement contemplated increased co-p…
[2] A modification of visitation does not constitute impermissible "rotating custody" when it aligns with the evolving co-parenting arrangements contemplated by the parties'…
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“the mediated settlement agreement below (entered into in 1998, when the child was an infant) specifically contemplated increased co-parenting by the former husband over time”
Establishes the basis for affirming the visitation modification as consistent with the parties' original agreement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were former spouses in a dissolution of marriage case with a mediated settlement agreement entered in 1998 when their child was an infant.…
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 Mediated Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Clarification
Upon consideration of the appellant’s motion for clarification, the motion is granted. We withdraw our per curiam opinion filed April 15, 2009, and substitute in its place the following:
The former wife appeals two final orders resulting from the parties’ cross motions for post-judgment modification of the child visitation provisions of the final judgment in a dissolution of marriage case. We affirm the final judgment granting modification of visitation, because the mediated settlement agreement below (entered into in 1998, when the child was an infant) specifically contemplated increased co-parenting by the former husband over time; the final judgment was based on competent substantial evidence; and the modification did not constitute a “rotating custody arrangement.”
We affirm the final judgment awarding sanctions insofar as it imposed sanctions against the former wife’s trial counsel in*704dividually (and in fact that attorney1 did not appeal that judgment). We reverse that portion of the final judgment, however, which imposed the sanctions of $8,066.60 against the attorney and the former wife, jointly and severally. Based on the record presented here, the events which gave rise to the sanctions — an unprofessional bit of gamesmanship involving the preparation and deposition of an expert witness — were not caused, aided, or abetted by any action on the part of the former wife. We therefore vacate that portion of the final judgment entering judgment against the former wife “jointly and severally,” while affirming that judgment as imposed against her trial counsel individually.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.