MARK R. THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNN SAULS THOMAS, 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 adopting proposed final judgments prepared by a party's attorney does not constitute reversible error when the judge has current knowledge of the proceedings and the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.
The appellant challenged two judgments: one modifying a children's visitation schedule and another awarding attorney's fees to his former wife. He arg…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark R. Thomas appeals two judgments: one that modifies the children’s visitation schedule from the schedule established by the parties during the proceedings leading to their original dissolution of marriage; and the second that awards attorney’s fees to his former wife, Lynn Sauls Thomas. Mr. Thomas alleges that the trial court committed reversible error when it adopted the two proposed final judgments that were prepared by Ms. Thomas’ attorney, citing Rykiel v. Rykiel, 25 Fla.L. Weekly D2801, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 1805206 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec.8, 2000) for the rule that proposed final judgments adopted verbatim by a trial court constitutes reversible error. In Douglas v. Douglas, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 227366 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar.9, 2001), we distinguished the situation in Rykiel where there was numerous indicia of the trial judge’s lack of participation and knowledge in the final judgment from a situation where a trial judge has current knowledge of the trial proceedings and simply requests proposed judgments from the parties’ attorneys in order to expedite finalization of a matter. Indeed, this procedure has been a custom of litigation practice for many years and is a practice that is necessary in current times when increasing demands are made upon trial judges to make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We have scrutinized each of Mr. Thomas’ detailed objections to the court’s findings and conclusions that he alleges are unnecessary, irrelevant, unfair, or prejudicial to determine whether each is supported by competent substantial evidence, the standard of review required upon appeal. See generally Philip J. Padavano, Florida Appellate Practice, § 9.6 (1997). We have found competent, substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court and affirm both judgments.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)…ct’s holding in Rykiel. Id. To support its conclusion, the Fourth District referred to two subsequent Fifth District cases which, in its view, clarified the Rykiel holding: Douglas v. Douglas, 795 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), and Thomas v. Thomas, 781 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In Douglas, the Fifth District stated that the trial judge in Rykiel had not been prepared and was not knowledgeable of the case before adopting the final judgment. Therefore, that judge’s verbatim adoption of counsel’s proposed…
-
Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 816 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…and knowledge in the final judgment. We note, however, that the better practice is for the trial court to make fact findings and indications of its review of the judgment or order on its face. Id. at 100 n. 1. Following Douglas in Thomas v. Thomas, 781 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), the district court rejected appellant’s argument that Rykiel stood for the rule that a proposed final judgment adopted verbatim by a trial court constitutes reversible error. The district court said in Thomas In Douglas v. Doug…
-
Pietras v. Pietras, 842 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…rt is somewhat troubled by the fact the trial court failed to make a single change or correction to Sharon’s proposed final judgment, especially where that proposed judgment was submitted before trial was even [*959] concluded. See Thomas v. Thomas, 781 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(findings in final judgment must be examined to see if they are supported by competent substantial evidence). . We note the $1,200 premium figure was relatively arbitrary itself. The record reflected at one time during the marria…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence