Spano v. Bruce

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Spano v. Bruce

892 So. 2d 500, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14992, 2004 WL 2290623

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 2004

DocketNo. 3D04-838

StatusPublished

This text of 892 So. 2d 500 (Spano v. Bruce) 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

Spano v. Bruce, 892 So. 2d 500, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14992, 2004 WL 2290623 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The mother, Rosemarie Spano, appeals the denial of her motion to modify the parties’ custodial visitation agreement. We affirm.

A review of the record indicates that the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing that there was a substantial change in circumstances since entry of the parties’ visitation agreement that would warrant a change of custody, and that a change of custody would be in the best interest of the child. Mejia v. Rico-Perez, 827 So.2d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Perdices v. Perdices, 800 So.2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 821 So.2d 299 (Fla.2002); Perez v. Perez, 767 So.2d 513, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Therefore, we affirm the order under review.

• Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The mother, Rosemarie Spano, appeals the denial of her motion to modify the parties’ custodial visitation agreement. We affirm.

A review of the record indicates that the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing that there was a substantial change in circumstances since entry of the parties’ visitation agreement that would warrant a change of custody, and that a change of custody would be in the best interest of the child. Mejia v. Rico-Perez, 827 So.2d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Perdices v. Perdices, 800 So.2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 821 So.2d 299 (Fla.2002); Perez v. Perez, 767 So.2d 513, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Therefore, we affirm the order under review.

• Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 So. 2d 500, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14992, 2004 WL 2290623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spano-v-bruce-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack