RONDA MICHELE PAULICK, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL PAULICK, 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.
Former Wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets, the parenting plan favoring the Former Husband as primary caregiver, and the denial of alimony and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded for further proceedings to effectuate the parties' settlement regarding the value of the Former Husband's thrift savings plan distribution.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments on all issues, finding competent and substantial evidence supporting the trial court's determinations and no abuse of discretion. The court remanded only to permit the parties to effectuate their agreed resolution regarding the value of the thrift savings plan distribution.
[1] A trial court's determination of a parenting plan is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The trial court found that Former Wife regularly sought to limit Former Husband's access to their children and made repeated allegations of sexual abuse that were all found to be unsubstantiated by the Department of Children and Family Services, the Sheriffs Office, various psychologists and therapists, and three different judges.”
Establishes the basis for the trial court's loss of confidence in Former Wife's credibility and parenting 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 found that Former Wife repeatedly sought to limit Former Husband's access to their two children and made multiple unsubstantiated alle…
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 Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
Ronda Paulick (“Former Wife”) appeals a- final judgment of dissolution of hbr marriage to Paul Paulick (“Former Husband”). Former Wife argues that the trial court erred in its equitable distribution of the parties’ assets, specifically as to the par*1110ties’ marital home and Former Husband’s thrift savings plan. Former Wife also appeals the parenting plan fashioned by the court, which made Former Husband the primary caregiver of the parties’ children as well as the denial of alimony and attorney’s fees. We affirm.' However, we remand for further proceedings on the value of the distribution from Former Husband’s thrift savings plan in order to effectuate the parties’ resolution of this issue during the pendency of this appeal.
The trial court found that Former Wife regularly sought to limit Former Husband’s access to their children and made repeated allegations of sexual abuse that were all found to be unsubstantiated by the Department of Children and' Family Services, the Sheriffs Office, various psychologists and therapists, and three different judges. During the course of the case, the trial court repeatedly ordered Former Wife to provide Former Husband time with his children, yet she persistently refused to comply with those orders. Although Former Wife was the primary caregiver of the parties’ two children during the course of the marriage, a role that was initially ratified by the trial court, the court — frustrated with her continued rejection of its orders — finally placed the children primarily with Former Husband.
In contrast, Former Husband has not only complied with the letter of the court’s orders on time-sharing but with the spirit of those orders as well, granting Former Wife additional visitation at her request. The trial court has found this welcome change to be in the children’s best interest as they are now “healthy, happy, and doing well at school, both socially and educationally.” We find competent, -substantial evidence to support this determination. Likewise, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in any of the remaining issues raised.
The parties appear to have attempted to communicate with each other through their briefs. In his answer brief, Former Husband, appearing pro-se, offered to resolve the outstanding issue of the value of the thrift savings plan. In her reply brief, Former Wife accepted his offer. It is not the role of this Court to refashion the final judgment. Therefore, based on the agreement reached by the parties and in the interest of justice, we remand the case to the trial court only to effectuate the parties’ resolution of this issue.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.