WENDY D. PETERSON F/K/A WENDY D. WENZEL, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS M. BROWN, 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.
In this domestic relations appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal quashed a trial court order that misinterpreted a custody judgment provision regarding a smoke-free and alcohol-free environment for minor children. The appellate court found that the trial court's order falsely characterized the parties' stipulation and contradicted the clear language of the original judgment.
The court quashed Paragraph 2 of the November 13, 2000 order because: (1) there was no actual stipulation by the parties as claimed; and (2) the trial court's interpretation of Paragraph L conflicted with its clear language, which required both parents to provide the children with a smoke-free and alcohol-free environment, not merely that neither party smoke or drink in the children's presence.
[1] A trial court's order may be quashed in part when it misinterprets or misstates the parties' stipulation or the court's prior judgment.
[2] A court order drafted by an adversarial attorney may fail to accurately reflect the court's conclusions.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This practice invites the presentation of orders which do not objectively and accurately represent the conclusions of the trial court.”
The court identified the core problem of allowing adversarial attorneys in domestic relations cases to draft court orders, leading to inaccurate representations of the court's actual rulings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeterson initiated a contempt hearing against Brown, the adjudicated father of her two children, based on a judgment entered August 18, 2000, which re…
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 Interpretation Of Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
The appellant, Wendy Peterson, challenges an order entered by the trial court on November 13, 2000, entitled “Order Denying Custodial Parent’s Motion for Contempt, Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem.” The order in question, which was based upon an evidentiary hearing held on November 1, 2000, once again illustrates the problem inherent in having an adversarial attorney in a domestic relations case draft documents for the court’s signature. See, e.g., White v. White, 686 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Polizzi v. Polizzi, 600 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). This practice invites the presentation of orders which do not objectively and accurately represent the conclusions of the trial court.
The order in question was the result of a contempt hearing initiated by Peterson against Thomas Brown, the adjudicated father of her two children, and was predicated upon a judgment entered on August 18, 2000, which contained the following Paragraph L:
The parties have agreed and the Court does further Order that both parties shall provide the children at all time with a smoke free and alcohol free environment.
This provision apparently was intended to address health problems of the older child.
The second paragraph of the November 13, 2000 order reads as follows:
The parties stipulated and agreed that Paragraph L should not be interpreted to mean that neither party can take the minor child to a location where others are smoking or drinking but rather the interpretation of said clause shall, mean that neither party shall smoke or consume alcoholic beverages in the presence of the minor children.
The record reveals that there was no such stipulation by the parties. Moreover, the interpretation of Paragraph L of the August judgment is in clear conflict with its actual language, which provided that both parents were to provide the children with a smoke-free and alcohol-free environment, not merely that neither party would smoke or consume alcoholic beverages in the presence of the minor children.
Accordingly, we quash Paragraph 2 of the trial court’s order dated November 13, 2000.
' ORDER QUASHED IN PART.
SHARP, W., and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Polizzi v. Polizzi, 600 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- White v. White, 686 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)