TERRY J. BREWER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY C. BREWER, 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.
Terry Brewer appeals an amended supplemental final judgment awarding his former wife $8,075 in retroactive alimony. The court reversed because the written judgment's calculations of the husband's monthly expenses and payment structure conflicted with the trial court's oral pronouncements at the hearing.
The court reversed the retroactive alimony award because the written judgment was inconsistent with the trial court's oral findings regarding the former husband's monthly expenses ($3,614 versus $3,200) and the payment structure (20% cap versus $500 monthly payments).
[1] A final judgment must be consistent with the trial court's oral pronouncements made at a hearing.
[2] Where a written judgment conflicts with a trial court's oral ruling, the written judgment must be reversed and remanded for recalculation consistent with the oral finding…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement.”
Establishes the legal standard that triggers reversal in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved in March 2007 with an award of $1,600 per month in permanent periodic alimony to the former wife. The trial court …
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 Retroactive Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Terry Brewer, the former husband, appeals the amended supplemental final judgment awarding the former wife, Mary Brewer, $8075 in retroactive alimony. He contends that the award is based on calculations which differ from the oral pronouncements made by the trial court at the hearing on the former wife’s request for retroactive alimony. We agree and accordingly, reverse.
The final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage was entered in March 2007. It awarded the former wife $1600 per month in permanent periodic alimony and reserved jurisdiction to consider the former wife’s entitlement to retroactive alimony and attorney’s fees. At the evidentia-ry hearing to determine those issues, the trial court found that the former husband’s monthly expenses during the retroactive time period were $3614 and ruled that “repayment of retroactive alimony would be maxed out at twenty percent of the amount of alimony that has been ordered.”
In contrast, the amended supplemental final judgment stated that the former husband’s monthly expenses were $3200 per month. Based upon this figure and a monthly net income of $4500, the court found that the former husband had the *433ability to pay $1300 per month in retroactive alimony. The court awarded the former wife $1000 per month in retroactive alimony payable at a monthly rate of $500. Had the trial court calculated the former husband’s ability to pay based on $3614 in monthly expenses rather than $3200, the written judgment would have reflected that he had only $886 per month from which to pay retroactive alimony. Further, had the trial court structured the payments as it had announced it would at the hearing, the former husband would have been required to repay no more than $320 per month (20% of the $1600 in alimony previously awarded) instead of the $500 set forth in the amended supplemental final judgment.
Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So.2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We therefore reverse the retroactive alimony award set forth in the written judgment and remand for the trial court to recalculate the proper amount of alimony and its repayment, taking into consideration the former husband’s expenses during the retroactive alimony period consistent with the court’s oral findings. See Mahaffey, 614 So.2d at 650.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
SUK v. Sook H. Chang, 189 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…m the court’s oral ruling and an overcalculation of the equalization payment.due.from the Husband to the Wife. Generally, “[rjeversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.” Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (reversing the portion of the final judgment concerning visitation and remanding with dir…
-
Rodriguez v. Medero, 17 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…so that the “gross-up method” was not necessary. As such, we remand the issues of child support and timesharing [*872] for the trial court to clarify its oral rulings and calculate child support based on the clarified rulings. See Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”); see also Pineiro v. Law Firm of Franklin & Criscuolo, 976 So. 2d 1146, 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversal and reman…
-
Shaver v. Shaver, 203 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ent because it awards the wife one year of rehabilitative alimony followed by four years of durational alimony when the trial court orally awarded one year of rehabilitative alimony followed by five years of durational alimony. See Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”). We also [*936] agree -with the wife that the written judgment is additionally inconsistent because it fails to incl…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Mahaffey v. Cyndi Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)