JOSE VALDES, APPELLANT,
v.
KIMBERLY VALDES, APPELLEE
The Father appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by seeking out and inventing its own facts, and that the trial court miscalculated his timesharing. We agree the trial court erred in its calculation of timesharing. The Final Judgment and Parenting Plan awarded the Father 41.87% timesharing. However, the Parenting Plan reflects only 22% of actual timesharing for the Father. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for recalculation. On remand, the trial court should also clarify when the Father’s weekend time-sharing begins.
Reversed and remanded.
STEVENSON, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…f "stalking." See, e.g. , Burns v. Bockorick , 220 So. 3d 438, 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (" 'In order to be entitled to an injunction for stalking, the petitioner must allege and prove two separate instances of stalking.' ") (quoting David v. Schack , 192 So. 3d 625, 627-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ); Klemple v. Gagliano , 197 So. 3d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (same); Richards v. Gonzalez , 178 So. 3d 451, 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (referring to "[e]ach incident of stalking") (emphasis in original); Touhey v. Seda…
-
Klemple v. Gagliano, 197 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…considering the sufficiency of the evidence, “[c]ourts apply a reasonable person standard, not a subjective standard, to determine whether an incident causes substantial emotional distress.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). ‘ Here, the evidence is insufficient to constitute stalking under , the “following” prong of the statute. Gagliano never testified that Klemple followed him. The only evidence' that could • arguably amount to “following” was Ga…1 / 2
-
Packal v. Deniz D. Johnson, 226 So. 3d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…5(1), Florida Statutes (2016), establishes a cause of action for an injunction for protection against stalking. “Each incident of stalking must be proven by competent, substantial evidence to support an injunction against stalking.” David v. Schack, 192 So. 3d 625, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Touhey v. Seda, 133 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)). “A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking.” § 784.048(2), Fla. S…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence