Crisanto v. Raybon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crisanto v. Raybon

798 So. 2d 11, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13390, 2001 WL 1111518

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

DocketNo. 1D01-1047

StatusPublished

This text of 798 So. 2d 11 (Crisanto v. Raybon) 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

Crisanto v. Raybon, 798 So. 2d 11, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13390, 2001 WL 1111518 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the Order Denying Motion to Vacate Order of Modification because the findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and we cannot say that the holding constitutes an abuse of discretion. Appellant also complains about the trial court’s failure to rule on her request for attorney’s fees and costs. Appellee concedes error. On remand, the trial court shall rule on appellant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the Order Denying Motion to Vacate Order of Modification because the findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and we cannot say that the holding constitutes an abuse of discretion. Appellant also complains about the trial court’s failure to rule on her request for attorney’s fees and costs. Appellee concedes error. On remand, the trial court shall rule on appellant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 So. 2d 11, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13390, 2001 WL 1111518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crisanto-v-raybon-fladistctapp-2001.