Florida family law: When a judge's oral ruling conflicts with the written final judgment

Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure

What happens when what a judge says at a hearing conflicts with what is written in the final judgment? Generally, the judge’s oral ruling controls, and if there is a discrepancy or inconsistency in the final judgment, it may be necessary to file a motion for amendment or for clarification. Errors in a final judgment of divorce were appealed in the case Karkhoff v. Robilotta, 4D19-2947 (Fla. 4th DCA December 9, 2020).

The parties were married for about 13 years before a petition for divorce was filed. They were parents to a child with disabilities who required ongoing care. For that reason, the wife was unable to work and served as the child’s full-time caregiver. The wife was awarded alimony and child support. Some inconsistencies between the judge’s oral ruling at the final hearing and the wording of the final judgment became apparent and each party appealed certain language in the judgement.

The first issue appealed regarded the parties’ vehicles. The wife was awarded an adaptive van while the husband was awarded a Honda. The judgment stated the parties waived any "right, title, or interest in and to” the other parties’ vehicle. However, the parenting plan required that the wife allow the husband to use the adaptive van for his Saturday time-sharing while at the same time the Husband was required to allow the wife use of his Honda. The appellate court ruled this inconsistency should be clarified by the trial court to determine “whether its intent was to (1) grant Former Husband a limited right to use the adaptive van for timesharing, or (2) have the parties truly waive all rights in the other parties' vehicle.”

Second, the issue of the wife’s duty to refinance the marital home was appealed. The wife was awarded the marital home and was required to refinance it within 120 days to remove the husband from the mortgage. The final judgment was silent as to what would happen if the wife failed to refinance. The appellate court noted “A trial court has the authority to order a party to refinance a home and remove the other party from the mortgage. See Tarnawski v. Tarnawski, 851 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). However, when a trial court orders a party to refinance a home in a final judgment, that final judgment must direct a result if that party is unable, or simply fails, to refinance the home. See Jones v. Jones, 184 So. 3d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Failure to include such a directive is reversible error. See Id.” The matter was thus remanded for the trial court to include a provision regarding what would happen if the wife did not refinance.

Moving on to time-sharing, the court orally ruled that the husband could petition for more time-sharing after six months if he showed he attended a significant amount of therapy sessions and that he was consistent with his Saturday time-sharing. However the parenting plan incorporated in the final judgment stated the husband could petition for increased time-sharing if he was "consistent with his attempts” to exercise his time-sharing. Since attempting to exercise time-sharing and actually exercising it are two different things, the appellate court ruled the final judgment needed to be amended to comport with the oral pronouncement.

Next, the appellate court reviewed the issue of the appointment of a parenting coordinator. The evidence indicated there was a history of domestic violence. According to the Florida Statutes, a parenting coordinator may not be appointed if there is a history of domestic violence if the parties do not consent to the coordinator. The record did not reflect any consent from the wife for the appointment of a coordinator. The appellate court held, “Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to confirm Former Wife's consent to the appointment of the parenting coordinator, or in the event consent is not given, to strike that portion of the Final Judgment requiring said appointment.”

Last, the court dealt with the issue of the husband being ordered to maintain a life insurance policy to support the alimony and child support obligations. The evidence showed the wife was a full-time caretaker for the parties’ child and that she relied solely on the alimony and child support to support herself and the child. The loss of this income would be greatly detrimental to her and the child. The appellate court held this was a special circumstance which warranted the life insurance obligation. However, the court noted it was error for the court to fail to include findings of availability and affordability of the life insurance. The court stated “Former Husband argues that the lack of such findings warrants striking the provision regarding life insurance from the Final Judgment. However, a trial court's decision to require life insurance to secure an alimony or child support obligation is only reversed without remand when there are no special circumstances to warrant such a requirement. [internal citation omitted]. Because that is not the case here, outright reversal is not warranted. Additionally, when there is no evidence on the record of the cost and availability of life insurance, a case is typically remanded for the trial court to consider additional evidence on that issue. [ internal citation omitted]. Former Husband is correct that there was no evidence in the record regarding the cost of those policies he could obtain, but this evidence may only be determined when he applies for life insurance and specifics are determined by his insurance company. Although generic policy terms and prices can be used as a benchmark, as was done here, more information must be obtained.”

Mistakes happen in Florida family law final judgments. This is why it is important to have a lawyer on your side who is examining each step. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to go over the specifics of your case.