BRIANA COUTURE
v.
AUSTIN COUTURE
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.
Briana Couture appealed an amended supplemental final judgment awarding majority timesharing to Austin Couture for their minor child. The Florida District Court of Appeal, First District reversed the judgment based on internal inconsistency between the trial court's findings, which supported Briana's case for majority timesharing, and the actual timesharing order that favored Austin.
The appellate court reversed the judgment because it was internally inconsistent. The judgment's conclusion awarding majority timesharing to Austin Couture conflicted with both the parenting plan attached as an exhibit (which gave Briana all unspecified timesharing) and the trial court's own findings of fact on the section 61.13 factors (which favored Briana's case).
[1] A judgment awarding majority timesharing is internally inconsistent and subject to reversal when the judgment's text conflicts with the timesharing schedule attached as a…
[2] A trial court's findings on timesharing factors may support a conclusion favoring one parent for majority timesharing, even if the court ultimately awards majority timesh…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the amended final judgment is internally inconsistent on the award of timesharing, we reverse.”
Statement of the core reversible error—the judgment contradicts itself regarding who should have majority timesharing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an amended supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage regarding timesharing of the parties' minor child. The court …
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 Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Briana Couture challenges an amended supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding Austin Couture majority timesharing with the parties’ minor child. We reverse.
In the amended supplemental final judgment, the trial court found that it was in the best interest of the child for Austin Couture to have majority timesharing based on the timesharing factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes. The court ordered the parties to abide by a parenting plan, which was attached as an exhibit to the final order. But the parenting plan provides that Briana Couture will have all timesharing not otherwise specified and that Austin Couture will have timesharing every other weekend from Friday to Sunday. In addition, the court’s findings on the timesharing factors support a conclusion that the best interest evaluation favored Briana Couture’s case for majority timesharing. Because the amended final judgment is internally inconsistent on the award of timesharing, we reverse. See Justice v. Justice, 80 So. 3d 405, 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that the trial court erred in ordering a timesharing schedule in the final judgment that conflicted with the timesharing schedule attached as an exhibit to the final judgment). In view of our decision to reverse the order regarding timesharing, we decline to reach Briana Couture’s other arguments specifically addressing the trial court’s findings on two of the § 61.13(3) factors.
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of a revised order regarding timesharing.
ROWE, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Destiny Syamne Dowers v. Johnson (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
-
A. A. v. D. W. (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Justice v. Justice, 80 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)