Straney v. Floethe
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4870
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Straney and Floethe divorced in August 2007 after resolving issues in a marital settlement agreement; Straney was designated primary residential custodian with Floethe’s visitation schedule.
- Approximately nine months after final judgment, Floethe petitioned to modify custody alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances.
- A hearing led to a custody modification awarding Floethe more time with the child and creating a parenting plan under Florida Statutes §61.13(3).
- The order did not expressly state a finding of substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances or explain how §61.13(3) factors supported modification.
- Straney moved for rehearing; the trial court did not provide new reasons, other than asserting religion played no part in the decision.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court likely applied the wrong law by not requiring a substantial and material change and remanded for proceedings under the correct standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether modification required a substantial change in circumstances | Straney: change in circumstances shown; correct law requires substantial change | Floethe: modification justified by evidence and factors under §61.13(3) | Remanded for correct legal standard to be applied |
| Whether the trial court applied the wrong law by not requiring explicit change finding | Straney argues no explicit finding; wrong law used | Floethe contends discretion allowed without explicit findings | Remand to apply the correct law with appropriate findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2005) (requires substantial change for custody modification; considers §61.13 factors)
- Julian v. Bryan, 710 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (no need for detailed factor-by-factor written reasons; record must support best interests)
- Adams v. Shiver, 890 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (court not required to delineate every factor in final order)
- Flint v. Fortson, 744 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (desirable to provide findings; aids review)
- Hardwick v. Hardwick, 710 So.2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (findings are helpful to reviewing courts)