Exam3 - Cases - Cases Domestic Relations *Schweinberg v....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cases Domestic Relations ***Schweinberg v. Click 1) Procedural Background: - Circuit Court modifies final judgment of dissolution of marriage to change custody of minor children from husband to wife - Husband appealed 2) Key Facts: - After divorce in 1986, husband awarded permanent custody of all their minor children - Judgment did not set up a detailed visitation schedule - In 1991, husband denies wife visitation rights 3) Issue: Whether husband’s denial of visitation to wife and children’s disappointment of not being able to see their mother justified change of custody 4) Holding: To order change of custody, substantial and material change of circumstances must be found (so, no). 5) Reasoning: - Evidence presented must establish changes which have come about in the lives of the children during the six years they have lived with their father - No structured court ordered visitation, which husband was obligated to follow, in the final order of divorce - Mere frustration of visitation alone is insufficient to change custody (Crippen v. Crippen) - Must be evidence that the interest of the children will be promoted by a change of custody - Children’s wishes alone cannot support a change in custody 6) Disposition: Reversed and Remanded (5 th DCA) brief Marvin v. Marvin (2) ***Palimony*** - 1976, actor Lee Marvin - Michelle Marvin alleged she and Lee entered into an oral agreement o While “parties lived together they would combine efforts and earnings and share equally any and all property accumulated as a result of their efforts whether individual or combined” o Parties allegedly further agreed Michelle would “render her services as a companion, homemaker, housekeeper, and cook” - Absent an express or implied agreement to the contrary, no quasi-marital property rights accrues as a result of cohabitation o Courts have been unwilling to award benefits that flow from various statutes to live-in partners absent language that specifically encompasses that relationship o Needs clear language - Contracts have to be for a legal purpose o Meretricious contract – basis is sex - Michelle came back, arguing quasi-contract terms implied o Dinner party, Lee gets benefit, she gets nothing o Unjust enrichment *Gill v. Shively (5) ***Breach of Promise***
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/30/2011 for the course PLA 3013 taught by Professor Carolbast during the Fall '10 term at University of Central Florida.

Page1 / 4

Exam3 - Cases - Cases Domestic Relations *Schweinberg v....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online