Opinion
6D23-1156
08-25-2023
Natlyn Newton, Appellant, v. Herrington Augustin, Appellee.
Brandon Tyson, of Tyson Law Firm, LLC, Winter Park, for Appellant. Jamie Billotte Moses, of Holland & Knight, LLP, Orlando, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Lower Tribunal No. 2020-DR-001032-O John D.W. Beamer, Judge.
Brandon Tyson, of Tyson Law Firm, LLC, Winter Park, for Appellant.
Jamie Billotte Moses, of Holland & Knight, LLP, Orlando, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Schot v. Schot, 273 So.3d 48, 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("'[M]odification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances' and that modification is in the 'best interest of the child.'" (quoting § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018))); Miller v. Miller, 302 So.3d 457, 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) ("A trial court's order modifying a parenting plan is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." (quoting Schot, 273 So.3d at 50.)); Mistri v. Joseph Rutigliano &Sons, Inc., 827 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ("If reasonable [persons] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion." (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980)); Hiatt v. Mathieu, 350 So.3d 357, 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) ("The standard of review for rulings on timesharing and travel schedules is for abuse of discretion."); Martinez v. Lebron, 284 So.3d 1146, 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) ("Although Mother is correct that the trial court failed to make findings as to Father's need for attorney's fees or her ability to pay, Mother did not raise this issue below and thus, did not preserve it for appeal."); Topvalco Inc. v. Wolff, 358 So.3d 747, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (holding that "[w]here an error appears for the first time on the face of an order, a litigant must move for rehearing . . . to bring the error to the attention of the lower tribunal" and affirming due to a lack of preservation of error because "[the appellant] did not move for rehearing or otherwise timely bring the error to the trial court's attention").
This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Family Law Rule 12.530(a) to expressly require that in order "[t]o preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule." In re: Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.530 & Fla. Fam. Law Rule of Proc. 12.530, 48 Fla.L.Weekly S69 (Fla. Apr. 27, 2023).
WOZNIAK and WHITE, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur.