Floyd v. Floyd, 86-2170
| Decision Date | 30 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2170,86-2170 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 145,500 So.2d 317 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 145 Elaine R. FLOYD, n/k/a Elaine Rose, Appellant, v. William T. FLOYD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marjorie A. Schmoyer of Law Offices of de Manio & Associates, Sarasota, for appellant.
Robert C. Miller, Bradenton, for appellee.
The marriage of the parties to this appeal was dissolved by a final judgment of dissolution of marriage (the final judgment) entered on August 6, 1985. Both parties appealed the final judgment to this court and those appeals are presently pending. Subsequent to the filing of those appeals in this court, the trial judge entered orders dated July 24, July 31, August 18, and August 20, 1986, all of which were adverse to the wife. She appeals; we reverse.
The final judgment ordered shared parental responsibility of the three minor sons of the marriage, with the wife designated as primary residential parent. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, the wife requested permission to leave the State of Florida with her children, expressing in her motion her plan to obtain a teaching position in Illinois and indicating that she would take the children with her to Illinois should she obtain that position. The trial judge granted permission to the wife to leave the State of Florida and take the children with her, "subject to review at trial." The final judgment contained no restrictions on the residence or movement of the children.
In the final judgment the wife was also awarded exclusive use of the former marital home until her remarriage or until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen years. The husband was obligated to pay the wife $350 per month per child as child support. The final judgment was subsequently amended to reduce the child support to $300 per month per child.
After the entry of the final judgment and the appeals to this court from that judgment, the wife made plans to take the children to Illinois. That action brought about the entry of the orders which are the subject of this appeal. The net effect of the orders was to grant the husband temporary custody (primary residential responsibility) of the parties' minor children, stay the husband's child support obligation, grant the husband temporary exclusive use and possession of the parties' marital home, and forbid the removal of the children from the State of Florida. We reverse these orders because they are an attempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soles v. Soles, 88-1910
...lower court lacked jurisdiction to amend the appealed order, the subsequent August order must be quashed. See generally, Floyd v. Floyd, 500 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). As to the merits of the June order, the parties are in agreement that support may not be mandated after a child's eighte......
-
Adams v. Adams, 95-0813
...court was without jurisdiction to further modify the final judgment while the order granting modification was on appeal. Floyd v. Floyd, 500 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In Floyd, the trial court modified a dissolution order while an appeal of that order was pending. Id. at 318. The court ......