EVA POROPAT, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK POROPAT, 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.
Eva Poropat appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for contempt and enforcement of a marital settlement agreement. The appellate court identified a facial calculation error in the trial court's order and reversed and remanded for correction.
The appellate court reversed and remanded because the order contains a facial calculation error. Applying the listed credits ($36,000.00 + $32,000.00 + $10,000.00 + $102,500.00 = $180,500.00) against the $170,000.00 debt would result in a net credit to the wife of $10,500.00, not a $15,000.00 judgment against her as the trial court ordered.
[1] An appellate court may reverse a trial court's order on its face if the order contains a clear calculation error.
[2] The absence of a hearing transcript in the appellate record may prevent an appellate court from definitively determining the nature of an error in a trial court's order.
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“Determining that the order, on its face, contains a calculation error, we reverse.”
The court's statement of its primary holding that the trial court's order contains a facial mathematical error warranting reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2005, a final judgment dissolved the Poropats' marriage incorporating their marital settlement agreement. In 2007, the wife filed a motion for cont…
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 Enforcement Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Eva Poropat (wife) appeals the order entered by the trial court denying her motion for contempt against appellee, Mark Poropat (husband), and/or enforcement of the parties’ final dissolution judgment. Determining that the order, on its face, contains a calculation error, we reverse.1
In 2005, a final judgment was entered dissolving the parties’ marriage. The final judgment of dissolution incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement. In 2007, the wife filed a motion for contempt and/or enforcement, alleging that she had fully satisfied her financial obligations under the marital settlement agreement but that the husband had failed to satisfy his obligations under the agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the wife’s motion and entered an order concluding that the wife was entitled to receive various credits against a $170,000.00 debt she owed the husband as a result of the marital settlement agreement. After *508applying those credits, the trial court found that the husband was entitled to a judgment against the wife in the amount of $15,000.00.
The wife contends that the trial court’s order contains a calculation error since applying the listed credits against the $170,000.00 debt would result in a net credit to her of $10,500.00, rather than a net credit to the husband of $15,000.00. Specifically, the order indicated that the wife was entitled to credits of $36,000.00, $32,000.00, $10,000.00, and $102,500.00.
Although we would normally remand to the trial court with directions to correct the order to reflect the wife’s credit of $10,500.00, we are hampered by the fact that no transcript of the proceedings below is included in the record. Because the wife failed to provide this court with a transcript of the hearing on her motions, it is not possible for us to definitively determine whether the order contains a simple mathematical or some other type of error, such as the exclusion of some credit for the husband which would explain the calculation arrived at by the trial court.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to correct the mathematical error which is reflected on the face of the order. See Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So.3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, J., and ROUSE, R„ Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maloch v. Davis (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…nt. I agree, but I cannot discern if the miscalculation is in the trial court’s assessment of Former Wife’s need or in the alimony amount itself. Therefore, I would reverse for the trial court to reconsider both calculations. See Poropat v. Poropat, 54 So. 3d 507, 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“[W]e reverse and remand to the trial court to correct the mathematical error which is reflected on the face of the order.” (citation omitted)). I would otherwise affirm.…
-
Maloch v. Davis (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…nt. I agree, but I cannot discern if the miscalculation is in the trial court’s assessment of Former Wife’s need or in the alimony amount itself. Therefore, I would reverse for the trial court to reconsider both calculations. See Poropat v. Poropat, 54 So. 3d 507, 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“[W]e reverse and remand to the trial court to correct the mathematical error which is reflected on the face of the order.” (citation omitted)). I would otherwise affirm.…
Authorities Cited
- Buonanno v. Buonanno, 33 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)