EDWIN R. WILLIAMSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
PENNI LANE WILLIAMSON, 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 erred in awarding partial attorney's fees without findings of fact and in granting weekend visitation contrary to its oral pronouncement.
The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution, awarding attorney's fees and establishing a visitation schedule. The appellate court reviewed…
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 Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The instant final judgment of dissolution is reversed in the following respects only.
First, it was error for the trial court to award Mrs. Williamson partial attorney’s fees without making findings of fact to support the award. See Firestone v. Firestone, 704 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Second, it was error for the written final judgment to grant Mrs. 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 some sort ... just that the mother is able to see the child” was appropriate. The trial judge had agreed.
Finally, as a result of this correction, because the child will have visitation with the noncustodial parent for more than 28 consecutive days, in accordance with section 61.30(ll)(g) Florida Statutes (1997), the trial judge is free to consider reducing the amount of support paid to Mrs. Williamson during that period, not to exceed 50 percent of the amount awarded.
For the foregoing reasons, the final judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The trial judge should establish visitation times for the summer weeks at issue. He may also make the findings necessary to support a fees award, as well as consider a modification of support for the five week period.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (73 total)
-
Nelson v. State, 760 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…t court’s order, we observe that appellant failed to affirmatively allege in his motion where in the record information can be found demonstrating his entitlement to relief. See Toro v. State, 719 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167, n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In accordance with State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998), the judge in his order wrote that he had reviewed the court file. We agree with the Third District that the trial court should examine not only the' court fil…
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…e error must have resulted in an illegal sentence,” 2) “[t]he error must appear on the face of the record,” and 3) “[t]he motion must affirmatively allege that ‘the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to relief.’ ” Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quoting State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998); cf. Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.2001). As in Baker, we presume “this [third] requirement would necessitate more than mere conclusory allegations”: at minimum, “how a…
-
Carroll Lauramore v. State, 949 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, the appellant must allege: (1) he is serving an illegal sentence; (2) the error appears on the face of the record; and (3) how and where the record demonstrates an entitlement to relief. See Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Appellant’s motion is facially insufficient, as he alleges neither how nor where the record demonstrates that his crimes arose from a single criminal episode. See Harris v. State, 875 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding tha…
Previewing 3 of 73 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Carlile v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 704 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)