Shauna Ann Frost v. Jerome John Frost, Jr.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
SHAUNA ANN FROST, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D17-0196
JEROME JOHN FROST, JR.,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed October 6, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.
Paul S. Bryan, Judge.
Stephen K. Johnson, Law Offices of Stephen K. Johnson, LLC, Gainesville, for
Appellant.
Christina Nieto Seifert, Lake City, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The former wife challenges a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and
raises four issues on appeal. We affirm as to all four issues but write to explain that
the former wife did not properly preserve one issue for appellate review: whether
the trial court abused its discretion by not setting forth the steps the former wife
must take to restore unsupervised visitation with the minor child. As it was not
preserved, we decline to reach the merits of whether the trial court should have
addressed these steps.
During the entire course of this case, the former husband sought to limit the
former wife’s contact with the minor child to supervised visitation. The trial court
wrote an extensive order explaining his reasons for only allowing supervised
visitation, and those reasons were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The former wife, however, did not alert the trial court that she wanted the court to
address the steps she could take to reestablish unsupervised visitation, either by
filing a motion for rehearing or through any other means. This court has
consistently held that absent fundamental error, we will not address legal issues not
presented to the trial court. Freiha v. Freiha, 197 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016);
Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
In Freiha, the appellant challenged the trial court’s final order providing the
appellee with the majority of time sharing without providing a parenting plan that
included a time-sharing schedule. Id. at 607. We found that the appellant had not
properly preserved the issue for appellate review because he had not raised the
issue in a timely motion for rehearing. Id. at 608. However, we nonetheless
reversed, finding that the trial court’s total failure to address and adopt a time-
sharing plan constituted fundamental error. Id. at 608-609.
2
The error in this case, if any, is not fundamental. Fundamental error is
defined as “‘error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of
the cause of action.’” Freiha, 197 So. 3d at 608 (quoting Saka v. Saka, 831 So. 2d
709, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)). To date, it does not appear that any court has held
that a trial court’s failure to adopt a reunification plan constitutes fundamental
error.
This case is distinguishable from Freiha. Freiha involved a total failure to
address the focal issue of the litigation. In this case, the trial court spent extensive
time reviewing the issue of visitation. The court also ruled based on its extensive
experience with the former wife, which was outlined in the order. Thus, there does
not appear to be a total failure to make a decision concerning a critical issue;
rather, the issue is more of a disagreement with the way in which the trial court
ruled on the visitation issue. As such, there was no fundamental error in this case.
We, therefore, AFFIRM.
WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
3