ALISA VARTUMYAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL BEAN, 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.
Mother Alisa Vartumyan appeals a trial court's supplemental final judgment modifying the parenting plan. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District affirms the parenting plan modifications as supported by competent substantial evidence but dismisses the appeal regarding child support because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount at a future hearing, placing it outside the court's appellate jurisdiction.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the parenting plan as it was supported by competent substantial evidence of a substantial change in circumstances and the modification was in the best interests of the children. However, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the child support order insofar as the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount at a future hearing.
[1] A trial court's order modifying a parenting plan will be affirmed if supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order that determines entitlement to child support but reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount, retroactive perio…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 evidence was competent and substantial that there has been a substantial change in circumstances and that the modification is in the best interests of the parties' three children”
Establishes the standard for reviewing parenting plan modifications and what standard was met here
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court entered a supplemental final judgment modifying a parenting plan following an evidentiary hearing. The judgment included an order that c…
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 Modification Of Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
Respondent/Mother Alisa Vartumyan appeals the trial court's Supplemental Final Judgment Modifying Parenting Plan and Other Relief (the "supplemental final judgment") entered after an evidentiary hearing by the trial court. In our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in entering the supplemental final judgment because it is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Sordo v. Camblin, 130 So.3d 743, 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (affirming a trial court's order modifying a timesharing plan where "the evidence was competent and substantial that there has been a substantial change in circumstances and that the modification is in the best interests of the parties' three children.").
However, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review that portion of Vartumyan's appeal contained in paragraph 7 of the supplemental final judgment in which the trial court orders that "[c]hild support shall be set in accordance with the Guidelines" and "reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount, the retroactive period, if any, and the life insurance to secure support." See Garcia v. Valladares, 99 So.3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where order appealed determined entitlement to costs and attorney's fees but reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount at a future hearing); see also Argento v. Argento, 842 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (declining to review portion of a former wife's appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage *1162where the trial court determined entitlement to attorney's fees and costs but reserved jurisdiction to set the amount).
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garcia v. In re Valladares, 99 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Argento v. Argento, 842 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Sordo v. Camblin, 130 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)