JOHNNY W. WOODS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE WOODS, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We affirm in all respects, except we comment on two issues not raised by either party. Although we applaud the trial court’s efforts to expeditiously resolve cases, we discourage the practice of bifurcating the issues in dissolution of marriage cases and in entering hand written judgments on those issues. As this court stated in Weasel v. Weasel, 419 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), “[a] trial court has the power to bifurcate. However, such procedure should be employed with caution and will be the exception rather than the rule.” See also Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.1980). In the instant case, the record reveals no justification for the trial court dissolving the marriage without simultaneously resolving the various disputed issues.
We also discourage the use of “fill-in-the-blank” final judgment forms upon which the trial court enters handwritten rulings on disputed issues of alimony, equitable distribution and child custody, support, and visitation, which are difficult to decipher and, thus, hinder appellate review.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, HERSEY and GUNTHER, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R v. Asset Acquisitions & Holdings Tr., 202 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…9, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reproducing handwritten arrow from a “snapout” memo of sentence/order of the court and observing that the Second District Court of Appeal has discouraged the use of such memos "for more than twenty years”); Woods v. Woods, 610 So. 2d 71, 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (noting that "[w]e also discourage the use of ‘fill-in-the-blanlc' finál judgment forms upon which the trial court enters handwritten rulings” in family law proceedings). . As a matter of civil practice, Asset Trust had no a…
-
Barbara Law Williams v. Williams, 659 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…viously has the power to bifurcate any judicial proceeding. Weasel v. Weasel, 419 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). However, such procedure should be employed with caution and should be the exception rather than the rule. Id.; see also Woods v. Woods, 610 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Thus, only in exceptional circumstances should a trial court exercise its discretion to bifurcate. Weasel, 419 So. 2d at 700. As the supreme court warned in Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.1980): Although we…
Authorities Cited
- Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1980)
- Weasel v. Weasel, 419 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)