SARAH CATHERINE EDWARDS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
BRANDON SULLIVAN, 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.
In a family law matter, the appellate court reviewed a trial court's modification of custody from sole maternal residential care to rotating custody between parents. The court affirmed the custody modification as in the child's best interest, but reversed and remanded in part because the trial court failed to include a reservation of jurisdiction regarding the father's request for attorney's fees and costs.
The court affirmed that the trial court's determination of substantial, material changes and the custody modification in the child's best interest were supported by the record. However, the court reversed the omission of a reservation of jurisdiction regarding attorney's fees and costs, as the issue had been reserved during the pretrial conference and must be included in the final judgment.
[1] A trial court's determination of substantial, material changes in circumstances justifying a modification of custody is reviewable for sufficiency of the evidence.
[2] A trial court's determination that a modification of custody is in the child's best interest is reviewable for sufficiency of the evidence.
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“We conclude that the trial court's determination that there had been substantial, material changes in the parties' circumstances since the entry of the final judgment of paternity is supported by the record, as is its determination that modification of custody is in the child's best interest.”
Establishes the appellate court's affirmance of the custody modification based on proper factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSarah Edwards and Brandon Sullivan were parties to a paternity proceeding regarding their son. The trial court had previously entered a final judgment…
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 Paternity Establishment cases and more on FLexlaw
In this paternity proceeding, the mother, Sarah Catherine Edwards, appeals the supplemental final judgment that modifies custody of the parties’ son from the mother’s primary residential care to rotating custody. The father, Brandon Sullivan, has cross-appealed because the trial court did not include in the final judgment a reservation of jurisdiction to address his request that the mother pay his trial attorney’s fees and costs. We conclude that the trial court’s determination that there had been substantial, material changes in the parties’ circumstances since the entry of the final judgment of paternity is supported by the record, as is its determination that modification of custody is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s modification of custody.
In his cross-appeal, the father contends the trial court erred in failing to include in the supplemental final judgment a reservation of jurisdiction to address his request for attorney's fees and costs. We agree. The father sought attorney’s fees and costs in his supplemental counterpetition for modification, a fact noted by the court in the supplemental final judgment. The pretrial conference order in the record reflects that the trial court “reserved” the issue of attorney’s fees and costs for determination after the conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, the trial court should have included a reservation of jurisdiction in the supplemental final judgment and the omission requires reversal and remand for entry of a corrected supplemental final judgment. See, e.g., May v. May, 908 So.2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
We affirm the supplemental final judgment in all respects except for the trial court’s omission of a reservation of jurisdiction to address the father’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. On remand, the trial court shall enter a corrected supplemental final judgment that includes a reservation of jurisdiction to consider the father’s request for fees and costs.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LaROSE, J„ and CASE, JAMES R., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.