WILLIAM MCMULLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH MCMULLAN, 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 final judgment of dissolution of marriage was unclear and contradictory, lacking necessary findings for appellate review.
The final judgment of dissolution of marriage contained contradictory provisions regarding child support amounts and the husband's income. The court a…
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 Final Judgment Of Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
This is an appeal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and the denial of a motion for a stay brought by the former husband. We reverse and remand, sua sponte.
The final judgment is unclear and contradictory on its face. There is a child support order for $3,000, but in a section entitled “Alimony,” the judgment provides that “the Husband’s share of child support [is] $108.00 per month.” The wife is the primary custodial parent of the child, but the final judgment provides that the husband “has $1,903.48 for himself and the minor child.” In addition to this finding that the husband’s income is $1,903 per month, the judgment also finds that it is $2,778 per month. Further, the court ordered the husband to pay child support of $3,000 per month, primarily based on imputed income of an unspecified amount attributable to a trust, the terms of which the court found it had no real knowledge.
This judgment is not renewable in its present form because it lacks the type of findings necessary for meaningful appellate review. See Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Romano v. Romano, 690 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Brooks v. Brooks, 678 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Goosby v. Goosby, 614 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We also note that an order which is not clear and definite is insufficient to support enforcement or contempt proceedings. Escribano v. Coviello, 698 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thompson v. Plowmaker, 681 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
We therefore reverse the final judgment and the order denying the husband’s motion for a stay, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
La Ley Sports Complex at the City of Homestead, LLC v. City of Homestead, 255 So. 3d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Tipton v. Crotty, 872 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ried and was expecting the birth of another child close to the time of the hearing. However, without fact findings this part of the order is not reviewable on appeal. See Quinones v. Quinones, 870 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); McMullan v. McMullan, 710 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In addition, it appears from this record that the court awarded Crotty sums for expenses which either Tipton was not required to make or which were not being incurred: 1. Pursuant to the parties’ prior divorce decree, Tipton w…
-
State v. Rosario, 303 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…ssing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction); Schwades v. Am. Wholesale Lender, 146 So. 3d 150, 150–51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (awarding attorney fees for frivolous appeal even though the fees had not been requested by the appellee); McMullen v. McMullen, 710 So. 2d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (reversing on grounds not briefed); Inclima v. State, 625 So. 2d 978, 978–79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (withdrawing opinion sua sponte). 39 courts must honor the protections afforded to the State by rules of procedure, statutes,…
Authorities Cited
- Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 678 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Thompson v. Plowmaker, 681 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Richardo Escribano v. Coviello, 698 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Goosby v. Erla Marie Goosby, 614 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Romano v. Romano, 690 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)