BRAD CARLTON, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY CARLTON, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a final judgment of dissolution of marriage because the trial court adopted verbatim the former wife's proposed final judgment without allowing the former husband an opportunity to object or comment, violating the requirement that judges exercise independent judgment.
Yes. The trial court reversibly erred by adopting verbatim the former wife's proposed final judgment without affording the former husband an opportunity to object, thereby failing to exercise independent judicial judgment.
[1] A trial court reversibly errs by adopting a party's proposed final judgment verbatim without affording the opposing party an opportunity to object.
[2] The verbatim adoption of a party's proposed final judgment without independent judicial consideration creates an appearance that the trial judge did not exercise independ…
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“When the trial judge accepts verbatim a proposed final judgment submitted by one party without an opportunity for comments or objections by the other party, there is an appearance that the trial judge did not exercise his or her independent judgment in the case.”
Establishes the legal standard that adopting a party's proposed judgment verbatim without allowing the other party to comment or object violates the requirement of independent judicial judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court held a three-day trial spanning May 14, 2002, November 22, 2002, and April 14, 2003 in a divorce case. On the final day, the judge req…
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 Appearance Of Impropriety cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Former Husband claims the trial judge erred by entering a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage which was a verbatim copy of the Former Wife’s proposed final judgment. We reverse and remand, finding the trial court reversibly erred by adopting verbatim the Former Wife’s proposed final judgment without giving the Former Husband an opportunity to object. See Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383, 390 (Fla.2004) (“When the trial judge accepts verbatim a proposed final judgment submitted by one party without an opportunity for comments or objections by the other party, there is an appearance that the trial judge did not exercise his or her independent judgment in the case.”). The court held a trial in this matter over three separate dates: May 14, 2002, November 22, 2002, and April 14, 2003. On the final day the judge requested both parties to submit proposed final judgments. The final judgment of dissolution entered by the trial court was adopted verbatim from the proposed final judgment submitted by the Former Wife.
Florida courts have disapproved of the practice of adopting a party’s proposed judgment or order verbatim. See id. at 387-99; Ross v. Botha, 867 So. 2d 567, 571-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In this case, there is no indication the trial court independently considered the issues prior to entering the final judgment because the trial judge signed a verbatim version of the Former Wife’s proposed order on the same day it was submitted. Perlow specifically condemned this practice, noting in that case the judge adopted a verbatim version of a proposed order “within two hours of its submission.” Perlow, 875 So. 2d at 389.
The same situation arises in this case as the Former Husband had no opportunity to object to the Former Wife’s proposed order prior to its verbatim adoption by the trial court. In fact, the Former Husband received a copy of the court’s signed, final judgment prior to receiving a copy of the Former Wife’s proposed order. This set of facts leads to the conclusion the “trial judge did not exercise his or her independent judgment in the case.” Id. at 390.
Accordingly, except for the portion of the order dissolving the marriage, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mobley v. Mobley, 920 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…r husband are inapplicable. See Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383, 390 (Fla.2004) (holding that trial court reversibly erred by adopting proposed order verbatim without giving opposing party opportunity to comment or object); Carlton v. Carlton, 888 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (same). The former husband never mentioned or objected to the proposed order. Instead, he argued that he should be allowed to present additional evidence about the disputed assets. The judge disagreed, stating she would review t…
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Ross v. Hayley Lisa Botha, 867 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)