Yasar Korkmaz v. Anastasia Korkmaz
200 So. 3d 263
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant (former husband) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Amended Supplemental Petition for Modification of Time-Sharing and Motion to Set Aside the dissolution judgment.
- Trial court dismissed the amended petition as legally insufficient, finding no alleged facts arising after the final judgment that would constitute a substantial change in circumstances.
- Appellant raised four points on appeal; the court affirmed Points I and II without discussion and addressed Points III and IV concerning parental alienation pleading.
- Appellant alleged parental alienation and numerous communication and cooperation problems showing the former wife undermined his relationship with the child.
- The trial court granted the former wife’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action; the district court reviewed that dismissal de novo.
- The district court affirmed, holding the pleaded facts—even if true—did not meet the extraordinary burden to show a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances required to modify time-sharing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of amended petition to state claim for modification | Korkmaz argued allegations of parental alienation and hostile conduct establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting time-sharing modification | Anastasia argued the petition failed to allege post-judgment ultimate facts showing a substantial, material, and unanticipated change | Court held petition legally insufficient; dismissal affirmed — allegations amounted to acrimony/communication problems, not the required substantial change |
| Parental alienation as basis for modification | Korkmaz asserted parental alienation (undermining relationship) can justify modification and that he pleaded it | Anastasia contended the allegations were conclusory and did not plead the required ultimate facts post-judgment | Court acknowledged parental alienation can justify modification if proved, but here the pleadings lacked the necessary ultimate facts; claim failed |
| Standard of review for dismissal | N/A (procedure) | N/A | Court applied de novo review; must accept complaint facts and reasonable inferences but cannot look beyond the four corners |
| Burden to prove change in circumstances | Korkmaz argued his facts met the change requirement | Anastasia argued the burden is extraordinary and plaintiff did not meet it | Court reiterated the extraordinary burden; mere hostility, poor communication, or disclosure failures are insufficient to show the required substantial change |
Key Cases Cited
- Elbaum v. Elbaum, 141 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (motion-to-dismiss standard; accept pleading facts and inferences)
- Regis Ins. Co. v. Miami Mgmt., Inc., 902 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (motion-to-dismiss pleading standard)
- McKinnon v. Staats, 899 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (parental alienation can justify modification if proved)
- Jannotta v. Hess, 959 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (change-in-circumstances requirement for modification)
- Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005) (establishes substantial, material, unanticipated change and best-interest test; presumption favoring original decree)
- Reed v. Reed, 182 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (articulates three-part test for modification)
- Sanchez v. Hernandez, 45 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (acrimony/lack of communication alone insufficient)
- Bon v. Rivera, 10 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (must plead ultimate facts showing entitlement to modification)
- Bartolotta v. Bartolotta, 687 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (failure to allege material change bars modification)
- Kilgore v. Kilgore, 729 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (modification reversed if no allegation/finding of substantial change)
- Chamberlain v. Eisinger, 159 So. 3d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (party seeking modification bears extraordinary burden)
- Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (inability to communicate does not equal substantial change)
- Bazane v. Gambone, 924 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (acrimonious parental relationship insufficient for custody modification)
- Ragle v. Ragle, 82 So. 3d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (parental communication failures do not constitute substantial change)