DENNIS O'CONNOR, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY LOUISE O'CONNOR, 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 this family law appeal, the former husband challenges a post-dissolution order permitting the former wife to relocate with the minor children from Miami to Memphis, Tennessee, and denying his contempt motion regarding unpaid mortgage, insurance, and tax payments on the marital home. The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's determination that the relocation was in the best interest of the children.
The trial court's order permitting relocation was proper, as the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the relocation was in the best interest and welfare of the minor children and provided financial and educational advantages. The contempt motion denial was not addressed on appeal due to an incomplete record.
[1] A trial court may grant a custodial parent permission to relocate with minor children if the move is in the best interest and welfare of the children and there is no subs…
[2] A trial court's decision to grant a custodial parent permission to relocate with minor children will be affirmed on appeal if the findings are supported by substantial ev…
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“The Petition for Leave to Change the Permanent Residence of the minor children of the parties is GRANTED as it is in the best interest and welfare of the minor children to allow such change, there being no substantial evidence to the contrary, and in addition, being to the financial and educational advantage of the minor children.”
The trial judge's finding of fact supporting the relocation order based on the best interest of the children standard.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDennis and Mary Louise O'Connor were divorced in a judgment that awarded the wife custody of six minor children, alimony, and child support. The wife …
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 Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
[*439] PER CURIAM.
Dennis O’Connor, the former husband of Mary Louise O’Connor, appeals a post-judgment of dissolution of marriage order which (1) granted to the former wife permission of the court to remove her residence and that of the defendant children from Miami, Florida, to Memphis, Tennessee and (2) denied the former husband’s motion for contempt against the former wife for failure to make mortgage, insurance and tax payments on the former marital home.
The final judgment of dissolution of marriage gave the wife the custody of the six minor children of the marriage, awarded alimony and child support, and granted to the wife the sole use and occupancy of the marital home so long as the children are minors and reside with her and she does not remarry. The home was held as a tenancy in common.
In the Order Upon Wife’s Petition for Leave to Change Residence and Husband’s Motion for Contempt, the trial judge made the following finding of fact:
“1. The Petition for Leave to Change the Permanent Residence of the minor children of the parties is GRANTED as it is in the best interest and welfare of the minor children to allow such change, there being no substantial evidence to the contrary, and in addition, being to the financial and educational advantage of the minor children.”
The appellant has failed to bring to this court a complete record of the testimony before the trial judge. It appears from the portion of the record that is before us that the findings of the trial judge are supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, no error appears. See Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1975). Cf. Stamm v. Stamm, 266 So. 2d 413 (Fla.3d DCA 1972).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Viltz v. Viltz, 384 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…court is in the best position to make this judgment, and we will not disturb its finding. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Kern v. Kern, 333 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1976); Barnhill v. Barnhill, 353 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); O’Connor v. O’Connor, 347 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Affirmed. . The order, in pertinent part, gave the mother the right to remove the child from the confines of the United States. It was conditioned upon her returning the child, at her expense, to the father in the United States…
-
Helen Carbonell (Criado) v. Carbonell, 414 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…court was in the best position to make these findings, and we will not disturb them. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Kern v. Kern, 333 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1976); Barnhill v. Barnhill, 353 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); O’Connor v. O’Connor, 347 So. 2d 438 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Thoburn Stamm, Jr. v. Stamm, 266 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)