Yeates v. Yeates

915 So. 2d 735, 2005 WL 3299882
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 7, 2005
Docket2D04-5356
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 915 So. 2d 735 (Yeates v. Yeates) 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
Yeates v. Yeates, 915 So. 2d 735, 2005 WL 3299882 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

915 So.2d 735 (2005)

Marvin D. YEATES, Jr., Appellant,
v.
Janet L. YEATES n/k/a Janet L. Knapp, Appellee.

No. 2D04-5356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 7, 2005.

*736 Carl T. Boake and Kathy C. George of Law Offices of Carl T. Boake, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Sheila Skellie of Law Office of David J. Kurland, Largo, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Judge.

Marvin D. Yeates, Jr., appeals an order denying his supplemental petition to modify the parties' final judgment of dissolution of marriage to change the primary residence of their minor child from his former wife's home to his own. Applying the "detriment" standard as articulated in Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), the circuit court entered a thorough and thoughtful final judgment denying the requested relief.

Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court decided Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928, 934 (Fla.2005), holding that "[r]equiring proof of detriment is inconsistent with this Court's prior holdings and is not an element of the substantial change test necessary to modify a child custody award." The record before us does not clearly reflect that the circuit court would have denied the modification petition if it had not applied the detriment standard. For this reason, we reverse and remand to the circuit court to reconsider the petition in light of Wade. If the circuit court deems it necessary or advisable, it may take additional evidence.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Smith v. Smith
927 So. 2d 118 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Briscoe v. Briscoe
927 So. 2d 112 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
915 So. 2d 735, 2005 WL 3299882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeates-v-yeates-fladistctapp-2005.