McCormick v. Norman

453 So. 2d 515, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1691, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13962
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 1, 1984·No. No. 83-581·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order enforcing an Ohio child custody modification decree but otherwise declining to exercise modification jurisdiction over this matter. See §§ 61.1328 and 61.133, Fla.Stat. (1981). We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that appellant should exhaust her legal remedy in the state of Ohio through disposition of her pending motion for rehearing and by possible appeal from any adverse ruling. See § 61.1314, Fla.Stat. (1981). Under the particular circumstances presented, appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error, or a gross miscarriage of justice resulting from the manner in which the trial court reached its findings.

AFFIRMED.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

McCormick v. Norman, 453 So. 2d 515, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1691, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13962 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

453 So. 2d 515 (McCormick v. Norman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sommer v. Sommer
508 So. 2d 773 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
De La Pena v. Torrone
467 So. 2d 336 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Fleming v. State
456 So. 2d 1300 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)