Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Langdon v. Langdon
Citations: 96 So. 3d 1053; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14475; 2012 WL 3745039Docket: No. 1D11-6660
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 29, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court
Yelena Langdon, the Former Wife, appeals a trial court order modifying the time-sharing arrangement for the parties' minor child. She contends the trial court incorrectly altered the final order without evidence of a substantial change in circumstances, which was not anticipated at the time of the final order. Additionally, she argues the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the time-sharing after her successful Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, and/or Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The trial court had previously established a time-sharing plan allowing the child to reside with the Former Wife during the week and granted the Former Husband weekend time-sharing, excluding certain weekends. The Former Husband later filed an emergency motion for modification, citing a deterioration in his cancer condition and claiming it was in the child's best interest to live with him. In response, the Former Wife asserted that the trial court had already considered the Former Husband’s medical condition when issuing the final order, rendering his new claims unsubstantiated. The trial court temporarily expanded the Former Husband's weekend time-sharing while considering the motions. Ultimately, after hearing both parties, the court granted the Former Wife's motions, reaffirming that the Former Husband's medical condition was previously considered and did not constitute a sufficient change to justify altering the time-sharing arrangement. The appeal resulted in the reversal of the trial court's modification order. The trial court stated that the basis for modifying custody was not unforeseen and affirmed that the extended time-sharing arrangement would remain temporarily in place, prioritizing the minor child's best interests. The appeal followed this decision. The review standard for custody modification rulings is abuse of discretion, but courts have less latitude to modify existing custody orders compared to initial determinations. According to Section 61.13(2)(c) of the Florida Statutes, modifications require proof of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances affecting one or both parties, along with a determination that the change serves the child's best interests. The trial court concluded that the Former Husband failed to meet the necessary burden to justify the modification and acknowledged his medical condition in its final order. The court found that the reasons for modification were not unanticipated and stated that it could not modify time-sharing since it had previously dismissed the Former Husband's modification request. This ruling contradicts established legal precedent, leading to a reversal of the trial court's order regarding time-sharing modification while affirming all other aspects of the order. The case is remanded for corrections consistent with the appellate opinion.