NICOLAS V. BLANC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 30, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D14-2331 Lower Tribunal No. 14-8876 ________________ Davis Yves Nicolas, Appellant, vs. Minouche Blanc, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, John Schlesinger, Judge. Hegel Laurent, for appellant. Yolande Henry Van Dam; Barbara Green, for appellee. Before LAGOA, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant, Davis Yves Nicolas (“Father”), appeals a final order granting the petition of Appellee, Minouche Blanc (“Mother”), to relocate to Georgia. Father contends that there was no competent and substantial evidence to support the court’s final order. Having reviewed the trial court’s thorough order, and the record evidence upon which it was based, we find that the trial court properly considered and applied the requisite and applicable factors set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2014), and articulated findings of fact which were supported by the competent substantial evidence presented. We affirm the trial court’s order granting relocation.1 Father raises two additional issues, each of which we find to be without merit, and only one of which warrants any further discussion. Father asserts that, on the day of the final hearing, Mother provided Father with a copy of a letter from her prospective employer in Georgia. Before the hearing began, Father moved to exclude the letter as a potential exhibit, given that Mother provided it to Father immediately before the hearing. The trial court denied the motion to exclude, but indicated it would hear further objections if and when Mother sought to introduce the letter during the hearing. The record establishes that Mother never sought to introduce the letter into evidence and there is nothing in the record to suggest the letter was considered by the trial court. Any asserted error resulting from the court’s pretrial ruling was therefore harmless. 1 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
