HEATHER MIGNOTT v. GARFIELD MIGNOTT
20-1225
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2021Background:
- Heather and Garfield Mignott married in 2010 and had one minor child.
- Mother filed for dissolution in October 2016; after Mother’s May 2017 arrest, Father obtained custody.
- Final judgment dissolving the marriage was entered; remaining issues (alimony, child support, custody, timesharing) were set for non‑jury trial.
- Father filed a petition (Sept. 6, 2019) to relocate the child from Colorado to Missouri under §61.13001; Mother objected and the relocation issue was heard at the non‑jury trial.
- The trial court granted Father's relocation petition orally at the hearing (citing the father’s imminent travel) but made no oral or written findings addressing the statutory factors in §61.13001(7).
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new evidentiary hearing before a successor judge because the required statutory findings were absent and the original judge retired.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting Father’s relocation petition without making the statutory findings required by §61.13001(7) | Mignott: The court failed to evaluate and make findings on the statutory factors; relocation decision therefore unsupported and reversible | Garfield: Relocation was appropriate and should be permitted (trial court granted petition; urgency stressed) | Reversed and remanded — trial court abused its discretion by not making the required statutory findings; new evidentiary hearing before a successor judge required |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanabria v. Sanabria, 271 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (relocation orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Eckert v. Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (relocation grant must be supported by substantial competent evidence and findings)
- Chalmers v. Chalmers, 259 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (trial court decision on relocation reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires statutory findings)
- Cecemski v. Cecemski, 954 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same)
- Rossman v. Profera, 67 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (focus of relocation inquiry is child’s best interests)
- Krumholz v. Guardianship of H.K., 114 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (successor judge cannot simply supply credibility‑based findings as a ministerial act)