Father are substantial changes sufficient to warrant modification because we find they were inadequately pled and because they were not the basis for the trial court’s denial of the petition. Although the trial court properly denied the Father’s petition for modification of a custody determination, it erred in not following the “substantial change test” set forth in Wade. Visitation In addition to seeking rotating custody, the Father’s petition sought modification of visitation. The Father is not required to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to modify the visitation provisions in the final judgment because the MSA between the parties specifically contemplated revisiting the issue of visitation at the time the child began formal schooling. See Wade, 903 So.2d at 932 n. 9 (<HOLDING>); Greene v. Suhor, 783 So.2d 290, 292 (Fla. 5th
holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that court of appeals was without jurisdiction to modify judgment against insurer because judgment against insurer became final when it failed to appeal holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment holding that a postjudgment motion to incorporate a sanction as part of the final judgment is a motion to modify the judgment and extends the trial courts jurisdiction recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment