NANCY D. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES SHELDON DAVIS, 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.
In a family law dispute over child custody and visitation, the court reversed an order modifying a dissolution judgment that had prohibited the mother from exposing children to her homosexual relatives during out-of-state visits. The reversal was based on the court's lack of authority to modify the final judgment without a proper petition and the absence of new evidence warranting a change from a prior judicial ruling.
The court reversed the modification order on two grounds: (1) the court lacked authority to modify the final judgment in the absence of a petition for modification and supporting testimony, and (2) another judge had already heard testimony and ruled that association with the brother would not adversely affect the children, and no new evidence was presented to warrant a contrary ruling.
[1] A court cannot modify a final judgment of dissolution without a petition for modification and supporting testimony.
[2] A court may not modify a final judgment based on issues not presented in the motion before it.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“That neither party may remove the children from the State of Florida without the prior written consent of the other or leave of Court based upon a specified plan and return date.”
This establishes the original restriction in the dissolution judgment regarding out-of-state travel with the children.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment of dissolution awarded minor children to the wife and restricted either party from removing the children from Florida without written…
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 Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of dissolution previously entered in this cause awarded the minor children to the wife and set forth certain visitation rights. The judgment also contained the following provisions:
“8. That neither party may remove the children from the State of Florida without the prior written consent of the other or leave of Court based upon a specified plan and return date.”
Thereafter, the wife filed a motion for approval of a plan to visit her brother with the children in the State of New York for several days in the summer. Since the husband did not agree with the trip, the matter was called up for hearing. The husband’s objection centered around his claim that the wife’s brother was a homosexual. A psychiatrist testified that even if it be assumed that the brother was a homosexual, it would not harm the children if they accompanied the wife for a few days’ visit at the brother’s home. Thereupon, the court approved ' the trip plan.
The following December the wife filed a motion requesting the court’s approval for her to take the children with her to visit her mother in South Carolina. Once again the husband declined to agree, so a hearing was held before a different judge. Presumably fed up with the haggling between the parties and without further testimony concerning the possible effects upon the children of their association with the wife’s brother, the court entered an order approving the trip to South Carolina but modifying the final judgment by directing that at no time or place should the wife permit the children to be exposed to the company of the wife’s brother and a cousin from Virginia who was also said to be a homosexual.
We find it necessary to reverse the order for two reasons. First, in the absence of a petition for modification and any testimony in support thereof, the court did not have the right to modify the final judgment. The association with the wife’s brother or cousin was not before the court at that time, since the proposed trip to South Carolina did not involve a visit with them. Second, another judge had already heard testimony and ruled that association with the wife’s brother for a few days would not adversely affect the children. There was no new evidence presented indicating a change in the circumstances which would dictate a contrary ruling a few months later. The order modifying the final judgment is hereby reversed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.