HARVEY ULANO, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM WAY ANDERSON, AND WAY CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Dr. Ulano appealed a final judgment denying him recovery in an employment contract dispute with Dr. Anderson. The court reversed because the written final judgment was entirely inconsistent with the trial judge's oral pronouncements after trial, which indicated Ulano would recover.
Reversal is required where a final judgment is inconsistent with a trial court's oral pronouncements. The court reversed the final judgment and remanded for entry of a new judgment consistent with the trial judge's oral pronouncements.
[1] A final judgment must be consistent with the trial court's oral pronouncements.
[2] A trial court's written final judgment must conform to its prior oral pronouncements.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Reversal is required where a final judgment is inconsistent with a trial court's oral pronouncements.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that the court applied to reverse the judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Ulano entered an employment contract with Dr. Anderson to work as assistant medical director of a kidney dialysis center, with compensation includ…
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 Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
The plaintiff in a contract case appeals a final judgment in favor of the defendant. We reverse and remand because the final judgment entered was inconsistent with oral pronouncements made by the trial judge after the close of evidence.
Dr. Harvey Ulano entered an employment contract with Dr. William Way Anderson, under which Dr. Ulano worked as the assistant medical director of a kidney dialysis center which Dr. Anderson oversaw. As part of the contract, Dr. Ulano was to receive a percentage of the profit distributions received by Dr. Anderson from the dialysis center. After operating under the agreement for many years, Dr. Ulano believed he had not been properly paid by Dr. Anderson, and filed suit. A bench trial was held, at the conclusion of which the parties submitted written closing arguments. Several months later, the trial judge called the parties into court for a hearing, at which time the trial judge made a series of oral pronouncements indicating that Dr. Ulano would recover. At the conclusion of this brief hearing, the trial judge requested that the parties work out damage figures accordingly, and submit them to the court, indicating that, “I’ll make a decision as to figures if there is a disagreement.” Several days later, however, before the parties submitted anything further, the trial judge entered a written final judgment in favor of Dr. Anderson, denying Dr. Ulano any recovery whatsoever. Dr. Ulano now appeals.
Reversal is required where a final judgment is inconsistent with a trial court’s oral pronouncements. See Leonard v. Leonard, 613 So. 2d 1339, 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (final judgment which does not conform to trial court’s oral pronouncement must be reversed); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (trial court erred in not conforming final judgment to oral pronouncements), rev. denied, 604 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1992); Ivens Corp. v. Cohen, 560 So. 2d 1352, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (reversal required where “trial court expressed to the parties findings different from those memorialized in the final judgment”).
See also Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (final judgment must be consistent with oral findings); Howard v. State, 591 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (in criminal case, written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement); Powell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 479 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (error to enter final judgment inconsistent with explicit oral and written findings), rev. denied, 491 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1986).
Having carefully reviewed the transcript of the post-trial hearing in this case, there is no question that the final judgment subsequently entered was entirely incompatible with the oral pronouncements made by the trial judge.
Consequently, we reverse the final judgment, and remand for the entry of a new final judgment consistent with the trial judge’s oral pronouncements.
In light of the foregoing, we do not, at this time, address the other points raised by Dr. Ulano.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williamson v. Penni Lane Williamson, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…Williamson, the custodial parent, “weekend visitation” during the summer weeks in which the couple’s child was to reside with Mr. Williamson. This “weekend visitation” provision was contrary to the coúrt’s oral pronouncement. See Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). The final judgment’s visitation schedule defined weekend visitation as “Friday 6 p.m. until Sunday 6 p.m.” Arguing before the trial judge, mother’s counsel had acknowledged that for the five week period at issue, “visitation of…
-
Dorsey Goosby v. Lawrence, 711 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…, the final judgment must be reversed. After a careful examination of the record, we conclude that conflict indeed exists. It is well-settled law that the trial court’s oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment. See Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In this case, the final judgment is not in conformity with the oral pronouncements regarding alimony and child support. Alimony. At the December 16 hearing, the court made an oral pronouncement that the former wife would receive…
-
Perry v. Verleni, 853 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ctual findings challenged by [the Department] ... are not specifically overruled.” Oral pronouncements of an agency at a duly noticed hearing control over a written order which is inconsistent with those pronouncements. Cf., e.g., Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“Reversal is required where a final judgment is inconsistent with a trial court’s oral pronouncements.”). Beyond the normal rule requiring that a written order reflect the tribunal’s earlier pronouncements, three specific consid…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Mahaffey v. Cyndi Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Leonard v. Leonard, 613 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Howard v. State, 591 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Lurry v. State, 479 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- The Ivens Corp. v. Cohen, 560 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)