Westwood v. Westwood

157 So. 3d 550, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2748, 2015 WL 803907
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 27, 2015
DocketNo. 5D14-2087
StatusPublished

This text of 157 So. 3d 550 (Westwood v. Westwood) 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
Westwood v. Westwood, 157 So. 3d 550, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2748, 2015 WL 803907 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tammy Westwood appeals the denial of her “Verified Petition for Modification of Partial Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, or in the Alternative Motion for Reconsideration” (“the Petition”). Ms. Westwood argues that the trial court violated her due process rights by denying her relief without a hearing. The resolution of this issue depends on whether the Petition was actually a supplemental petition or an untimely motion for reconsideration;

At the time of trial, both parties were residing in the United States but were not U.S. citizens. In the partial final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the court ruled that the parties’ minor children should be allowed to move to the United Kingdom with Mr. Westwood.1 The court reserved jurisdiction to provide for a parenting plan and child support. Neither party appealed. Instead, thirty-four days later, Ms. Westwood filed the Petition, challenging the court’s finding that relocation was in the children’s best interest. The trial court summarily denied relief.

While the Petition attempted to cover all bases, Ms. Westwood neither obtained a summons nor served the Petition on Mr. Westwood. As a result, we believe the trial judge was correct in viewing the pleading as an untimely motion for rehearing or reconsideration. It was therefore properly denied without a hearing. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.580.

This opinion is without prejudice to Ms. Westwood’s ability to refile a properly served petition for modification. If she chooses to do so, Ms. Westwood will need to plead and prove a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances, and establish that modification is in the children’s best interest. See, e.g., Delivorias v. Delivorias, 80 So.3d 352, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

AFFIRMED.

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Delivorias v. Delivorias
80 So. 3d 352 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 So. 3d 550, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2748, 2015 WL 803907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westwood-v-westwood-fladistctapp-2015.