Wyckoff v. Wyckoff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wyckoff v. Wyckoff

932 So. 2d 1150, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10012, 2006 WL 1667394

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 16, 2006·No. No. 2D05-1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Douglas M. Wyckoff appeals the trial court’s order rendered March 11, 2005, arguing that the court erred in resolving several postdissolution issues. He also argues that in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla.2005), this court should [1151]*1151vacate or modify our earlier decision in Wyckoff v. Wyckoff 820 So.2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We affirm in all respects but note that the substantial change test approved in Wade would apply to further child custody modification proceedings between the parties.

Affirmed.

SALCINES, STRINGER, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Douglas M. Wyckoff appeals the trial court’s order rendered March 11, 2005, arguing that the court erred in resolving several postdissolution issues. He also argues that in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla.2005), this court should [1151]*1151vacate or modify our earlier decision in Wyckoff v. Wyckoff 820 So.2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We affirm in all respects but note that the substantial change test approved in Wade would apply to further child custody modification proceedings between the parties.

Affirmed.

SALCINES, STRINGER, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Wyckoff v. Wyckoff, 932 So. 2d 1150, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 10012, 2006 WL 1667394 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

932 So. 2d 1150 (Wyckoff v. Wyckoff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related