MARIA LUISA MASSA CISNEROS v. CARLOS A. GUINAND
21-1910
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2021Background
- Parents entered a stipulated final judgment and referral to Family Bridges for three minor children; the plan included up to a 90‑day no‑contact period after program participation and an award of sole parental responsibility to the father for that period.
- The judgment contained a conflict‑resolution clause allowing unresolved time‑sharing disputes to be submitted to the court and a broad reservation of jurisdiction.
- Although 90 days passed, the mother (Cisneros) was denied any contact with the children for well over two years after they attended Family Bridges.
- Following a hearing, a predecessor judge indicated an intent to extend the no‑contact period pending benchmarks set by Family Bridges; Cisneros filed a motion for reconsideration seeking modification, alleging an unanticipated change in circumstances and that the court had abdicated its decision‑making to Family Bridges.
- The trial court ruled the motion untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits; Cisneros petitioned for a writ of mandamus.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred: the motion alleged a cognizable substantial change and the stipulated judgment was nonfinal (reservation of jurisdiction), so the trial court has authority to consider the merits; the petition for mandamus was granted but issuance was withheld to allow the trial court to act promptly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to reconsider/modify the stipulated parenting plan | Cisneros: motion alleged a substantial, unanticipated change in circumstances and sought custody modification | Guinand: motion was untimely under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530, so court lacked jurisdiction | Court: trial court retained jurisdiction to consider the merits and erred by declining to do so; mandamus granted |
| Whether the stipulated judgment was final or left the court power to act later | Cisneros: judgment anticipated further judicial labor (conflict resolution clause, reservation of jurisdiction) | Guinand: (implicit) judgment final as entered; post‑judgment relief procedurally barred | Court: stipulation was nonfinal due to reservation/conflict clause, so modification authority exists |
| Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy | Cisneros: no adequate remedy at law because trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction | Guinand: (implicit) mandamus extraordinary and not warranted | Court: mandamus appropriate where lower court refuses jurisdiction; writ granted but issuance withheld for prompt ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Crump v. Branning, 77 So. 228 (Fla. 1917) (mandamus available where inferior court refuses to take jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Parker, 131 U.S. 221 (1889) (mandamus does not correct discretionary errors; lies where court refuses to proceed after obtaining jurisdiction)
- Poliak v. Poliak, 235 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (trial court retains jurisdiction to modify custody orders until children reach majority)
- Talarico v. Talarico, 305 So. 3d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (custody determinations are sensitive and often require post‑judgment modification)
- Seigler v. Bell, 148 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (mandamus appropriate when no plain and adequate remedy at law)