MICHELLE PIMIENTA
v.
DAVID ABRAHAM ROSENFELD
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance motion when the delay in completing a psychological report was solely attributable to the moving party, even when coupled with counsel withdrawal shortly before trial.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance when the delay in completing a psychological report is solely attributable to the party re…
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion for continuance will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
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 intelligenceAfter a three-day trial in a paternity action, the trial court awarded the father sole timesharing and ultimate decision-making authority for the mino…
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Michelle Pimienta, in proper person. Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
LOBREE, J.
Michelle Pimienta (the “mother”) appeals from an amended final judgment of paternity. After a three-day trial during which the mother voluntarily absented herself, the trial court awarded the father, David Rosenfeld, the entirety of timesharing with the parties’ minor son as well as ultimate decision-making authority, in accordance with the recommendation of the guardian ad litem. Fourteen days before trial, the mother moved for a continuance based upon the fact a psychological report had yet to be completed. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the mother’s motion for continuance, even in light of the withdrawal of the mother’s tenth attorney shortly before trial, as our review of the record shows that the delay in completing the report was solely attributable to the mother. See Hogan v. Aloia, 257 So. 3d 479, 482-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Cargile– Schrage v. Schrage, 908 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Finding no error in the numerous other issues raised by the mother, we affirm the trial court’s commendably detailed and thorough order. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cargile-Schrage v. Schrage, 908 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Hogan v. Aloia, 257 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)