JOSE SALA
v.
PENELOPE WOOD
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's modification of timesharing is affirmed when the order is supported by competent, substantial evidence and the court provided both parties adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
[1] A trial court's modification of timesharing is reviewed for competent, substantial evidence and must be affirmed if the record contains such evidence supporting the modif…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Modification of timesharing by a trial court should be affirmed if the trial court's order is supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Court's statement of the applicable standard for reviewing timesharing modifications
A temporary judge suspended the mother's timesharing on an emergency basis. The assigned trial judge then conducted a full evidentiary hearing and res…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1851 Lower Tribunal No. 24-11406-FC-04
________________
Jose Sala,
Appellant,
vs.
Penelope Wood,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria Del Pino, Judge. Law Offices of Andre A. Rouviere, and Andre A. Rouviere, for appellant. Lisa A. Baird, P.A., and Lisa A. Baird, for appellee. Before MILLER, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
After a temporary judge suspended the Mother’s timesharing on an emergency basis,1 the assigned trial judge conducted a full evidentiary hearing. It gave both parties adequate notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Roberts v. Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156, 158 (Fla. 3d DCA
2022). It properly considered all evidence before it. See § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (2024); § 90.902(11), Fla. Stat. (2024). After carefully considering this evidence, the trial court restored timesharing between the parties. The order is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Meyers v. Meyers,
295 So. 3d 1207, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“Modification of timesharing by a trial court should be affirmed if the trial court’s order is supported by competent substantial evidence.”). Therefore, we affirm in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Meyers v. Meyers, 295 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
- Roberts v. Anyzeila Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)