DARBY J. CORTRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERYL L. CORTRIGHT, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court's judgment in a dissolution action must explicitly order shared parental responsibility, even if one parent is designated the primary residential parent.
In a dissolution action, the final judgment granted primary residential care of the minor child to the wife but did not expressly order shared parenta…
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 Primary Residential Parent cases and more on FLexlaw
SEALS, JAMES H., Associate Judge.
In this dissolution action the husband appeals from a final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, distributing the marital assets of the parties, awarding rehabilitative alimony, granting primary residential care of the parties’ minor child to the wife, and ordering the husband to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. We find no error with the trial court’s rulings on equitable distribution of assets, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney’s fees. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We write solely to clarify the child custody issue raised in this appeal in which the husband maintains that the trial court erred in not awarding shared parental responsibility to both parties.
The judgment of dissolution provides that “[pjrimary residential care, custody, and control of the minor child” is granted to the wife. The judgment does not expressly grant shared parental responsibility as required by section 61.13(2)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1989). The wife concedes that the judgment never intended to award her sole custody of the minor child, but that the omission of shared parental responsibility language was merely a scrivener’s error and that the court intended to award custody to both parties, with the wife as the primary residential parent.
Because the judgment caused some confusion on the matter of shared parental responsibility, we remand only for the trial court to clarify the judgment to explicitly order that the parties are to have shared parental responsibility of the minor child, with the wife as the primary residential parent. Otherwise, we affirm.
RYDER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.