Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Sometimes lack of detail in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in Florida can cause confusion. The Florida Statutes require that certain issues be specified in a parenting plan such as time-sharing. In equitable distribution, a failure to specify how the court arrived at its distribution decision and/or classification of assets can disrupt the equities. These were issues in the case Brutus v. Giles, 5D22-223 (Fla. 5th DCA May 19, 2023).

A final judgment of divorce was entered which awarded the former husband the marital home and had him paying an equalizing payment to the former wife. Alimony was awarded as well, along with a parenting plan granting equal time-sharing. The parenting plan did not specify holiday time-sharing, communication between the parties and decision-making. The former husband appealed several issues in the final judgment relating to equitable distribution, alimony and the parenting plan.

The former husband argued it was error for the court to assign solely to him his student loan debt acquired during the marriage and a series of loans he took out during the marriage to pay the mortgage and his student loans. As to the student loan, the appellate court ruled “The trial court made no written findings of fact regarding the student loan debt here, and its oral pronouncements were inaccurate. Although the court stated that the student loan debt had been incurred post-separation, in fact it had been incurred during the parties’ marriage. What did occur post-separation was that Former Husband consolidated his various student loans into a single consolidated student loan without incurring any additional debt in the process. Accordingly, given the absence of an appropriate explanation or findings of fact, we reverse and remand for the trial court’s reconsideration, preparation of findings, and proper distribution of that marital liability.”

The appellate court also found the series of loans should have been distributed to both parties, holding “Former Husband correctly argues that the trial court improperly distributed a marital liability solely to him, namely a series of loans totaling $60,029. Former Husband borrowed money from an individual over the course of several years, from 2014 through 2019. The stated purposes of the loans were to pay down the mortgage on the marital home and his student loans. None of the money was borrowed post-filing, and it appears that all loan proceeds were used for marital purposes.”

Turning to the alimony award, the former husband argued it was error for the trial court to award it in its written order when the court orally pronounced at trial that no alimony would be granted to the former wife. The appellate court reversed, holding “‘Reversal is required when a trial court’s oral pronouncements conflict with its written judgment.’ Saucier v. Nowak, 200 So. 3d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). And since a ‘trial court’s oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment,’ Goosby v. Lawrence, 711 So. 2d 577, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an amended final judgment that denies Former Wife’s claim for alimony.”

Last the appellate court agreed with the former husband regarding the lack of specificity in the parenting plan. The court remanded for the trial court to describe in adequate detail how the parents would share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child; to establish a time-sharing schedule arrangement that specifies the time that the minor child will spend with each parent; designate who is responsible for health care decisions, school-related matters, and other activities; and detail the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the children.

Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to your case.