06-2108 ECHEZARRETA V. ECHEZARRETA

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 06-2108 ECHEZARRETA V. ECHEZARRETA

Case Date: 12/13/2006

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006

MARTHA D. ECHEZARRETA, Appellant, vs. EDUARDO ECHEZARRETA, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D06-2108 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-12489

Opinion filed December 13, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marc Schumacher, Judge. Steven N. Abramowitz, for appellant. Ilene F. Tuckfield, for appellee.

Before GREEN and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. The mother, who, in a Miami-Dade County dissolution

judgment of October 9, 2003, had been granted primary physical residence of the couple's twelve and thirteen year-old

daughters, appeals from orders (a) denying her application to

relocate with the children to Daytona Beach and (b) temporarily granting custody of the children to the father so they could continue to attend school in Miami-Dade County. orders. I. On the relocation issue, we reject the claim that, under the then-prevailing law, 1 the mother had the right to relocate even without the permission of the court. See Fredman v. We affirm both

Fredman, 917 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Fabre v. Levine, 618 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), review denied, 629 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1993); Hill v. Hill, 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1990). does not apply to this case both In our judgment, this rule because (a) the parties'

marital settlement agreement, incorporated into the judgment of dissolution, parental Florida specifically stated be that the issue by of shared 61.13,

responsibility Statutes (2003),

would which

governed

section

includes

the

then-controlling

relocation statute,

Download 06-2108 ECHEZARRETA V. ECHEZARRETA.pdf