Garone v. Parks, 95-3776
| Decision Date | 21 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-3776,95-3776 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D469 Joseph S. GARONE, Appellant, v. Donna PARKS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Charles M. Greene, Judge.
Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
Appellant husband appeals a non-final order allowing his wife to relocate to California with the couple's children during the pendency of dissolution proceedings. Although husband notified this court after the filing of his brief that his wife and children had moved back to Florida, he urges us to address the propriety of the order allowing relocation prior to final judgment, because it could occur again in this case.
In May 1995, in a dissolution action, the wife filed a verified motion seeking permission for her and the children to relocate to California, alleging, among other things, that she would have a better employment situation there. The trial court granted the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The husband appealed to this court, and obtained a stay, but apparently at that point the wife and children were already in California. After the briefs were filed, the wife's counsel confessed error and we reversed for the trial court to conduct a hearing. Garone v. Parks, 658 So.2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
At the September 1995 evidentiary hearing, a different trial judge found himself confronted with the fact that the wife and children were somewhat settled in California. After hearing the evidence and discussing the factors to be considered in determining relocation under Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla.1993), the court was quite skeptical about the wife's motives for moving as well as the husband's reasons for opposing the move. Although the court made no written findings regarding the Mize factors, his oral analysis of the evidence makes it clear that he would not have allowed the move if the wife and children were still living in Florida. As is understandable, however, he was reluctant at this point to order them back to Florida, and left things as they were. Husband appeals that order and an order holding him in contempt.
Although we are now informed that the wife and children have returned to Florida, we address the propriety of the court having allowed relocation prior to final hearing, since it could occur again in this case.
The husband takes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deal v. Deal
...634 So.2d 315, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Wolfson v. Wolfson, 455 So.2d 577, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307, 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We must next determine whether the notice of appeal was timely filed by the appellant to confer jurisdiction on this court to......
-
Decker v. Lyle
...Stat. (1999)). Furthermore, a trial court should make this consideration at the earliest opportunity. Id.; see also Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Upon remand, the trial court should consider the statutory relocation factors as part of its evaluation of the best in......
-
Shiba v. Gabay
...statute, trial courts had the authority to order relocation, although it was discouraged prior to final hearing. See Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We conclude that the court had the authority to order return of the child. Finally, the mother challenges the time-sh......
-
Young v. Luther, 1D03-0601.
...standard for relocation under section 61.13(2)(d), where it was not clear whether the statute had been applied); Garone v. Parks, 668 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding same standard should be used for deciding temporary and permanent relocation REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, a......