Gerner v. Gerner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gerner v. Gerner

529 So. 2d 1226, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1912, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3627, 1988 WL 81835

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 1988

DocketNo. 88-889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 529 So. 2d 1226 (Gerner v. Gerner) 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

Gerner v. Gerner, 529 So. 2d 1226, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1912, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3627, 1988 WL 81835 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

We reverse an order of the court, entered on a general master’s finding, which changes the primary custody of three minor children from the mother to a split-custody arrangement between feuding parents. The evidence does not overcome the strong presumption that rotating the primary physical residence of children is not in their best interests. Frey v. Wagner, 433 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also Hurst v. Hurst, 158 Fla. 43, 27 So.2d 749 (1946); Scott v. Scott, 401 So.2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Bienvenu v. Bienvenu, 380 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Peterseil v. Peterseil, 307 So.2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

The case is remanded for the purpose of reinstating the custody provisions of the final judgment. On remand the trial court is directed to clarify the parties’ rights and obligations under the final judgment with respect to visitation. The remedy for violation of those provisions is to hold the errant party in contempt.

Reversed and remanded.

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

FERGUSON, Judge.

We reverse an order of the court, entered on a general master’s finding, which changes the primary custody of three minor children from the mother to a split-custody arrangement between feuding parents. The evidence does not overcome the strong presumption that rotating the primary physical residence of children is not in their best interests. Frey v. Wagner, 433 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also Hurst v. Hurst, 158 Fla. 43, 27 So.2d 749 (1946); Scott v. Scott, 401 So.2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Bienvenu v. Bienvenu, 380 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Peterseil v. Peterseil, 307 So.2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

The case is remanded for the purpose of reinstating the custody provisions of the final judgment. On remand the trial court is directed to clarify the parties’ rights and obligations under the final judgment with respect to visitation. The remedy for violation of those provisions is to hold the errant party in contempt.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 So. 2d 1226, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1912, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3627, 1988 WL 81835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerner-v-gerner-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack