Crisanto v. Raybon
Crisanto v. Raybon
798 So. 2d 11; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13390; 2001 WL 1111518
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Crisanto v. Raybon
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the Order Denying Motion to Vacate Order of Modification because the findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and we cannot say that the holding constitutes an abuse of discretion. Appellant also complains about the trial court’s failure to rule on her request for attorney’s fees and costs. Appellee concedes error. On remand, the trial court shall rule on appellant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.