STEVEN J. MILLER
v.
CAROLINE E. MILLER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Steven Miller appealed a trial court's decision regarding modification of a parenting plan and attorney's fees award in a family law matter. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of attorney's fees but remanded for entry of a corrected judgment to include the parties' original child support agreement as previously directed.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees but held that the trial court failed to comply with the prior mandate by not including the parties' original child support agreement in section 8 of the amended supplemental final judgment, requiring remand for correction.
“We directed the trial court to "reflect the parties' original agreement concerning child support." This agreement, memorialized in section 5.1 of the marital settlement agreement, is not contained in section 8, the child support/reimbursement section, of the amended supplemental final judgment.”
Establishes the core deficiency in the trial court's compliance with the appellate mandate
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteven and Caroline Miller had an agreed-upon parenting plan and marital settlement agreement that included a child support provision in section 5.1. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandate Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter again comes before us following the modification of an agreed-upon parenting plan between Steven and Caroline Miller. We previously reversed in part, directing the trial court to enter an amended supplemental final judgment and to reconsider Mr. Miller’s demand for attorney’s fees. See Miller v. Miller, 302 So. 3d 457, 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“Miller I”). We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Miller is not entitled to attorney’s fees in this proceeding. Furthermore, with one exception, the trial court followed our mandate in Miller I. We directed the trial court to “reflect the parties’ original agreement concerning child support.” This agreement, memorialized in section 5.1 of the marital settlement agreement, is not contained in section 8, the child support/reimbursement section, of the amended supplemental final judgment. We remand for entry of a second amended supplemental final judgment to contain this language, which is to be memorialized within twenty days of the issuance of our mandate.1 We otherwise affirm.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with DIRECTIONS.
EDWARDS, TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur. 1 We dictate this time frame in an effort to minimize the likelihood of further filings of voluminous, expensive, and unnecessary post-appellate motions. 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Miller, 302 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…agreed-upon parenting plan between Steven and Caroline Miller. We previously reversed in part, directing the trial court to enter an amended supplemental final judgment and to reconsider Mr. Miller’s demand for attorney’s fees. See Miller v. Miller, 302 So. 3d 457, 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“Miller I”). We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Miller is not entitled to attorney’s fees in this proceeding. Furthermore, with one exception, the trial court followed our mandate in Miller I. We directed the t…
-
Natlyn Newton v. Herrington Augustin (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)…g plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances’ and that modification is in the ‘best interest of the child.’”1 (quoting § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2018))); Miller v. Miller, 302 So. 3d 457, 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“A trial court’s order modifying a parenting plan is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (quoting 1 This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023. Schot, 273 So. 3d…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 302 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)