Anna Louise Krift v. Daryl Dean Obenour
152 So. 3d 645
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Krift and Appellee Obenour are divorcing; Palm Beach County case No. 502010DR013723XXXXMB; Fourth DCA reviewed a rotating two-month timesharing plan.
- Trial court ordered a two-month rotating timesharing plan, not requested by either party in pleadings or at trial.
- Parties previously shared a weekly schedule with substantial travel (Lake Worth vs Bahia Honda, ~400 miles/week).
- Wife sought the Model Parental Timesharing Schedule; husband sought to keep equal sharing with travel between Lake Worth and Bahia Honda.
- Trial court later designated husband as primary residential parent at kindergarten age and ordered Model plan implementation at that time; wife challenged due process and relocation implications.
- On cross-appeal, husband challenged the characterization of his credit card debt as marital; court followed up with remand on timesharing and affirmed nonmarital debt classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rotating two-month timesharing was permissible without pleadings | Krift due-process rights violated | Obenour argues discretion allowed | Rotating schedule void; remanded for proceedings |
| Whether the two-month rotation constituted improper relocation | Krift claims relocation rule applied | Obenour contends not a relocation | Not relocation; affirmed primary-residential arrangement upon kindergarten |
| Whether the credit card debt was marital or nonmarital | Krift challenges debt characterization | Obenour supports nonmarital finding | Nonmarital debt affirmed; cross-appeal resolved in favor of Obenour |
Key Cases Cited
- Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So.3d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (rotating schedules not raised in pleadings require notice)
- Flemming v. Flemming, 742 So.2d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (trial court cannot decide unraised rotating plans)
- Moore v. Wilson, 16 So.3d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (due process violation when rotating custody not pled or requested)
- Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So.3d 454 (Fla. 2010) (best-interest determinations must be present-based, not prospective relocation)
- Winters v. Brown, 51 So.3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (standard abuse of discretion for parenting plan decisions)