WALTER A. NEUMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERI LEE NEUMAN, 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.
A father appeals a contempt order in a custody and visitation case where the trial court's judgment contained contradictory language regarding his "unlimited" visitation rights and a five-week summer maximum. The court reversed because the judgment was internally inconsistent and failed to clearly define each parent's rights.
The judgment is reversed and remanded because it is internally inconsistent and fails to clearly apprise the parties of their rights. A judgment cannot simultaneously grant "unlimited" visitation (suggesting no cap) while enforcing a five-week maximum, and the contempt order cannot stand on such a contradictory basis.
[1] A judgment awarding "unlimited" visitation that also specifies a minimum visitation period is inconsistent and must be reversed for clarification.
[2] A court should not proceed to trial on an incomplete or confusing stipulation between parties.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“One wonders how, if the father has unlimited (as opposed to liberal or reasonable) visitation with a minimum (as opposed to maximum) of five weeks during the summer, he can be held in contempt for keeping the children longer than the five-week minimum period.”
Identifies the fundamental logical contradiction in the judgment that undermines the contempt order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parents disputed custody and visitation. They reached a partial stipulation whereby the father would receive "unlimited" visitation, allowing the …
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
Walter A. Neuman brings this timely appeal from a final judgment and order of contempt. The primary issue determined at trial was the custody of the children and visitation for the nonresidential parent.
The issue of which parent would be the residential parent was hotly contested until the parties agreed that the father would have “unlimited” visitation. Based on this understanding, the father agreed that the mother could be named residential parent but that he should have a minimum of three weekends per month and the entire summer vacation excluding two weeks with the mother. The mother, while agreeing that the father’s visitation should be “essentially unlimited,” nevertheless did not agree as to what the minimum visitation should be. The court, instead of rejecting the incomplete stipulation, proceeded to trial and awarded the father “unlimited visitation” with the children which included a minimum of alternate weekends and five weeks each summer. When the father attempted to keep the children in excess of five weeks in the summer, he was (at a contempt hearing) ordered to immediately return the children to their mother. One wonders how, if the father has unlimited (as opposed to liberal or reasonable) visitation with a minimum (as opposed to maximum) of five weeks during the summer, he can be held in contempt for keeping the children longer than the five-week minimum period.
The problem is that the judgment itself is inconsistent and therefore fails to clearly apprise either party of their rights under it. As worded, the judgment permits the “unlimited” visitation to subsume the residential custody. This is the problem of attempting to give effect to an incomplete and confusing stipulation. The judgment as to visitation and designation of residential parent must be reversed for rehearing. Because the parties waived the issue of which should be the residential parent due to the proposed stipulation, at rehearing both parents should be permitted to contest for that position. The visitation for the nonresidential parent should be determined in such a way that there can be no doubt as to the rights of both parents.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a rehearing on the issue of residential custody and visitation.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.