Zepeda v. Zepeda

Florida Second District Court of Appeal · Family Law

Family LawChild RelocationTimesharingChild Supporttemporary relocationwritten agreementsection 61.13001timesharing schedule

Facts

The parties were divorcing and had one young daughter who had always lived in Naples near Mr. Zepeda's family and the Big Cypress Indian Reservation. Ms. Zepeda wanted to move with the child to Clay County, where her family lived, and obtained a similar job there. The parties discussed a proposed timesharing schedule drafted by Ms. Zepeda, but Mr. Zepeda testified he did not agree to it except on the condition that she return to Naples when the child started school. The trial court nevertheless permitted temporary relocation, did not set an express timesharing schedule, and ordered temporary child support based on the child's tribal stipend rather than guideline findings.

Issue

May a trial court temporarily authorize a child's relocation during a pending dissolution by relying on an unsigned proposed timesharing arrangement as an agreement, without establishing a timesharing schedule, and may it set child support by using the child's stipend instead of applying the statutory guidelines?

Rule

Under section 61.13001(6)(b)(2), temporary relocation during a pending dissolution may be permitted only upon findings showing a likelihood that relocation would be approved at final hearing, supported by the same factual basis required for a final relocation judgment and evaluated under the factors in section 61.13001(7). Relocation may alternatively be based on a written agreement signed by the parties and ratified by the court under section 61.13001(2), but an unsigned proposal is insufficient. If relocation is authorized, the court must establish a timesharing schedule so it can evaluate preservation of the parent-child relationship through substitute arrangements. Child support must be calculated consistently with section 61.30, including consideration of the parents' incomes, possible adjustment for the child's independent income, and any adjustment when a parent exercises at least 40 percent of overnights.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a pending divorce in Tampa, Elena Ruiz asks to temporarily relocate with the parties' five-year-old son to Jacksonville for a new teaching job. She and Marcus Bell exchanged emails discussing a proposed parenting schedule, but neither signed any relocation agreement, and Marcus testified he agreed only if Elena returned before the child began kindergarten.

If the trial court grants temporary relocation primarily because the parties had a "practical understanding" reflected in the emails, which is the best assessment?

Explanation. The majority held that a trial court may not base temporary relocation on a purported agreement unless there is a signed written agreement ratified by the court. An unsigned proposal may be offered as evidence of a proposed plan, but it cannot be treated as an actual agreement. Absent such a signed writing, temporary relocation must be supported by findings showing a likelihood that relocation would be approved at final hearing on the same factual basis required for final relocation approval.