NEVA BETHEA N/K/A NEVA GOLLER, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS BETHEA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mistake Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is brought from an order changing child custody from the mother to the father, and ordering the mother to pay $40 per week for child support.
A substantial change of circumstances, justifying the award of custody to the father, occurred after the mother suffered an alcohol and drug-induced stroke which caused permanent brain damage. On the facts in this record, which include recommendations of experts for the custody change, no abuse of discretion is shown. Discretion is abused only when the trial court’s decision is unreasonable. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Neither is a due process violation shown, based on lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard, in the order of support. The court’s written order reflects that the parties stipulated to the support award. To avoid the consequences of a stipulation properly entered into, a party must show that the agreement is the product of a fraud, misrepresentation or mistake of fact. Groover v. Groover, 383 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). No such showing has been made.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGOEY v. State, 736 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…[*35] v. Dublin Co., 489 So. 2d 805, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “To avoid the consequences of a stipulation properly entered into, a party must show that the agreement is the product of a fraud, misrepresentation or mistake of fact.” Bethea v. Bethea, 596 So. 2d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (quoting Groover v. Groover, 383 So. 2d 280, 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)); see also Eastern Airlines v. Griffin, 654 So. 2d 1194, 1195-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In this case, there is certainly nothing inappropriate about these p…
-
Crossen v. Feeley (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…ial and appellate courts”). “To avoid the consequences of a stipulation properly entered into, a party must show that the agreement is the product of a fraud, misrepresentation or mistake of fact.” McGoey, 736 So. 2d at 35 (quoting Bethea v. Bethea, 596 So. 2d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). In this case, the husband did not dispute the stipulation, let alone offer proof of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake of fact. The trial court erred by disregarding the parties' stipulation on the issue of Tucker's medi…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Mershon v. Buckles-Thompson, Inc., 383 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)