Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stover v. Stover

Florida Court of Appeals, Second District

January 3, 2020

BRIAN B. STOVER, Appellant,
v.
ASHLEY M. STOVER, Appellee.

         NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Jack Helinger, Judge.

          Roberta E. Blush and K. Dean Kantaras of K. Dean Kantaras, P.A., Palm Harbor, for Appellant.

          No appearance for Appellee.

          LAROSE, JUDGE.

         Brian B. Stover (Father) appeals the trial court's final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence with minor children.[1] Specifically, he contests (1) the trial court's determination that the evidence warranted an injunction, and (2) the trial court's award of exclusive timesharing to Ashley M. Stover (Mother). We affirm the first issue without comment. As to the second issue, our record indicates that the injunction has expired and the timesharing award is no longer in effect. Thus, we cannot grant Father any effectual relief, and the second issue is moot.[2] See generally Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So.2d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect." (quoting Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992))).

         Facts

         Mother filed a form petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence. The form provided several timesharing options:

a. "[p]etitioner requests that the Court provide a temporary parenting plan, including a temporary timesharing schedule with regard to, the minor child or children of the parties";
b. "[p]etitioner requests that the Court order supervised exchange of the minor child(ren) or exchange through a responsible person designated by the Court";
c. "[p]etitioner requests that the Court limit time-sharing by Respondent with the minor child(ren)";
d. "[p]etitioner requests that the Court prohibit time-sharing by Respondent with the minor child(ren) because Petitioner genuinely fears that Respondent imminently will abuse, remove, or hide the minor child(ren) from Petitioner"; and
e. "[p]etitioner requests that the Court allow only supervised time-sharing by Respondent with the minor child(ren)."

         Mother marked options (a) and (b). The form then permitted Mother to summarize the relief sought. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.