MICHAEL ALLEN RUNYON, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARY ANN RUNYON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed an order denying vacation of a custody award, but preserved appellant's right to an evidentiary hearing to rebut the Division of Family Services report underlying the original custody determination.
A trial court may deny a motion to vacate a custody order based on attorney negligence while preserving the movant's right to present rebuttal evidence at a subsequent evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court may deny a motion to vacate a custody order based on attorney negligence while preserving the movant's opportunity to present rebuttal evidence to an advers…
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 intelligenceFollowing dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded custody of two minor children to the mother based on a Division of Family Services report. …
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 Attorney Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By a motion to vacate filed pursuant to Rule 1.540, R.C.P., appellant sought to vacate an order (entered subsequent to final dissolution of marriage) which awarded custody of appellant’s two minor children to their mother, appellant’s former wife. Appellant’s motion alleged that due to his attorney’s negligence or excusable neglect, appellant had not been afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of child custody though he had sought such hearing.
The order appealed, though denying a further stay of the-prior custody order, did provide that appellant would be granted a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of presenting evidence in rebuttal to the Division of Family Services report upon which the trial court had relied in entering the original custody order. Appellant would not need to rebut those portions of the report favorable to him, and the opportunity to present evidence “in rebuttal” to any portions unfavorable to his position will adequately protect his rights. Such hearing is obviously for the purpose of allowing the court, upon completion thereof, to make a determination as to whether the custody award theretofore made should be confirmed or should be modified in some respect.
The order appealed is affirmed without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek the evidentiary hearing expressly provided for in the order. Affirmed.
OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.