Cardinal v. COTANT

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cardinal v. COTANT

22 So. 3d 858, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18717, 2009 WL 4403225

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 2009

Docket5D09-435

StatusPublished

This text of 22 So. 3d 858 (Cardinal v. COTANT) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cardinal v. COTANT, 22 So. 3d 858, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18717, 2009 WL 4403225 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife, Jennifer Cardinal, appeals the supplemental final judgment rendered by the trial judge after an evi-dentiary hearing in which the trial court revoked the former wife’s status as primary residential parent to the children of *859 this marriage, reset visitation, modified child support, and made other changes to the previously ordered conditions for the care and well-being of the children. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and have found no abuse of discretion or legal error committed by the trial court. We note that we have been hampered in our review by the lack of a transcript of the proceedings or any approved substitute for it, even though the court considered the testimony of at least four witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J., LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The former wife, Jennifer Cardinal, appeals the supplemental final judgment rendered by the trial judge after an evi-dentiary hearing in which the trial court revoked the former wife’s status as primary residential parent to the children of *859 this marriage, reset visitation, modified child support, and made other changes to the previously ordered conditions for the care and well-being of the children. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and have found no abuse of discretion or legal error committed by the trial court. We note that we have been hampered in our review by the lack of a transcript of the proceedings or any approved substitute for it, even though the court considered the testimony of at least four witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J., LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 So. 3d 858, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18717, 2009 WL 4403225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardinal-v-cotant-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack