STEVEN DOHERTY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SANDRA BROWN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Doherty and Brown appealed and cross-appealed from a trial court's order modifying a foreign custody decree. The court rejected Brown's petition to modify the child's primary physical residence and included dicta about future custody arrangements. The appellate court affirmed, finding the dicta non-binding and the denial of modification supported by competent substantial evidence.
The court held that the challenged statements were obiter dictum with no binding legal effect and did not constitute grounds for reversal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the modification petition, as the denial was supported by competent substantial evidence independent of the custody evaluation report.
[1] Gratuitous observations or remarks made in a judicial opinion that concern legal principles not essential to the resolution of the case are considered obiter dictum and h…
[2] Obiter dictum can confuse the jurisprudence of a state by confounding the court's final ruling.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[A] purely gratuitous observation or remark made in pronouncing an opinion and which concerns some rule, principle, or application of law not necessarily involved in the case or essential to its determination is obiter dictum, pure and simple.”
Establishes the legal definition of obiter dictum and supports the court's finding that the trial court's statements about future custody arrangements were non-binding dicta.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a Joint Custody Agreement that required review every six months. Brown petitioned to modify the agreement and change the minor child's…
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 Obiter Dictum cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant/Cross-Appellee appeals certain statements contained in the trial court’s Order Modifying Foreign Decree, and Appellee/Cross-Appellant appeals the denial of that portion of her petition for modification requesting a change in the minor child’s primary physical residence.
In the introductory findings section of the order on appeal, the trial court referred to the parties’ Joint Custody Agreement wherein the parties agreed to review the Agreement every six months, and speculated that accordingly, no substantial change in circumstances would be required in future modification proceedings. In the adjudicatory section of the order denying modification of the child’s primary residence, the court stated its intent that in the future, the child might “be able to rotate year to year between parents.”
We find that the challenged statements in the order on appeal pertain to matters which might arise in the future but were not necessary to the resolution of the case before the court. “[A] purely gratuitous observation or remark made in pronouncing an opinion and which concerns some rule, principle, or application of law not necessarily involved in the case or essential to its determination is obiter dictum, pure and simple.” Bunn v. Bunn, 311 So.2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). These dicta had no binding legal effect but, as *1268demonstrated by this appeal, served only to confound the trial court’s final ruling. See Cobb v. State, 511 So.2d 698, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (Baskin, J., specially concurring) (“Judicial pronouncements which are obiter dicta in character more often serve to confound than to clarify the jurisprudence of this State.”). Because the trial court’s comments did not address the merits of the modification proceedings then before it, such dicta did not constitute grounds upon which the Order Modifying Foreign Decree might be reversed.
We reject Appellee/Cross-Appel-lant’s assertion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition to modify the child’s primary physical residence. See Jannotta v. Hess, 959 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (standard of review for denial of modification of child custody is abuse of discretion). The trial court’s rejection of portions of the custody evaluation report was a valid exercise of the court’s discretion, and the denial of modification of the child’s primary physical residence was supported by competent substantial evidence other than the custody evaluation report. It is unnecessary to determine whether competent substantial evidence supports a denial of relief to the party carrying the burden of proof. See Mitchell v. XO Communications, 966 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Fitzgerald v. Osceola County School Bd., 974 So.2d 1161, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“a decision in favor of the party without the burden of proof need not be supported by competent substantial evidence.”).
AFFIRMED.
HAWKES, C.J., ALLEN, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tsuji v. Fleet, 326 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…al failure to file a timely claim against an estate does not prevent a creditor from recovering up to the policy limits of a decedent’s casualty insurance.” 771 So. 2d at 1159. But that observation was dicta, “pure and simple.” See Doherty v. Brown, 14 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Bunn v. Bunn, 311 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)). It was not necessary to the supreme court’s decision in answering the question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.…
-
Potter v. Malee Potter (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…at the parties’ marriage as lasting less than two years when the parties had been married twice and divorced only briefly. But that statement was not essential to the holding in the case and “is obiter dictum, pure and simple.” See Doherty v. Brown, 14 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[A] purely gratuitous observation or remark made in pronouncing an opinion and which concerns some rule, principle, or application of law not necessarily involved in the case or essential to its determination is obiter di…
-
Lucas v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…This fact also makes the officer’s enforcement of the statute look objectively reasonable and supports the conclusion that the officer’s actions do not merit the “last resort” penalty of suppression. jurisprudence of this State.” Doherty v. Brown, 14 So. 3d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Cobb v. State, 511 So. 2d 698, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (Baskin, J., specially concurring)). It also goes without saying that “[w]hile such dictum may furnish insight into the philosophical views of the judge or the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cobb v. State, 511 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Fitzgerald v. Osceola Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Fla. Sch. Bd. Ins. Tr., 974 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Bunn, 311 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Mitchell v. XO Commc'ns & Wausau/Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & XO Commc'ns & Travelers Ins. Co., 966 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Jannotta v. Hess, 959 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)