Epstein Secrets

to a modification of the marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that the Former Wife could permanently relocate the children to the State of Utah in June of 1998. In accordance with the 1996 agreement, the Former Wife purchased property in Utah. sold the home where she and the children were

ld a stay not be 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Defendants fail to adequately ad completely ignores the likelihood likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defe

to a modification of the marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that the Former Wife could permanently relocate the children to the State of Utah in June of 1998. In accordance with the 1996 agreement, the Former Wife purchased property in Utah, sold the home where she and the children were

ately ad s these fa rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to

to a modification of the marital settlement agreement which specifically provided that the Former Wife could permanently relocate the children to the State of Utah in June of 1998. In accordance with the 1996 agreement, the Former Wife purchased property in Utah. sold the home where she and the children were

equately ad•` s fa ;•rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to