Reyes v. Burgess

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reyes v. Burgess

801 So. 2d 1014, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17875, 2001 WL 1614143

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-3054

StatusPublished

This text of 801 So. 2d 1014 (Reyes v. Burgess) 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

Reyes v. Burgess, 801 So. 2d 1014, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17875, 2001 WL 1614143 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Willie Reyes argues that the trial court mistakenly assigned primary residential responsibility for the parties’ minor child to the child’s mother. The record reflects that when making this initial custody determination, the trial judge faced a difficult choice between two loving and capable parents. We cannot conclude that he abused his discretion when doing so. Accordingly, we affirm the custody determination.

Reyes also complains that the court should have denied the mother’s prayer for attorney’s fees and should not have reserved jurisdiction to consider it. However, because the court did not establish the amount of a reasonable fee, that determination remained nonfinal and nonap-pealable. McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Therefore, we do not reach this issue.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Willie Reyes argues that the trial court mistakenly assigned primary residential responsibility for the parties’ minor child to the child’s mother. The record reflects that when making this initial custody determination, the trial judge faced a difficult choice between two loving and capable parents. We cannot conclude that he abused his discretion when doing so. Accordingly, we affirm the custody determination.

Reyes also complains that the court should have denied the mother’s prayer for attorney’s fees and should not have reserved jurisdiction to consider it. However, because the court did not establish the amount of a reasonable fee, that determination remained nonfinal and nonap-pealable. McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Therefore, we do not reach this issue.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 So. 2d 1014, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17875, 2001 WL 1614143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-burgess-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack