JOACHIM D. EMILE
v.
DANIA EXCELLENT
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.
Appellee filed a petition for protection against stalking, and the parties reached a verbal agreement for a one-year no-contact injunction with appellant's agreement to surrender firearms and ammunition. The trial court entered a written final judgment that included additional findings and conditions not part of the verbal agreement, which appellant challenged.
The court affirmed the final judgment but remanded with instructions to strike the finding that appellee was a victim of stalking and all conditions not verbally agreed to by the parties, including enforcement provisions in Section V. The oral pronouncement of the parties' agreement must control over the later written order.
[1] When a trial court's oral pronouncement of an agreement differs from the written judgment entered thereafter, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must b…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A trial court's oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.”
Citation to Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), establishing the controlling legal principle for resolving discrepancies between oral agreements and written judgments.
During a hearing on a stalking protection petition, the parties verbally agreed to a one-year no-contact injunction and appellant's surrender of gun a…
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 Injunction For Protection Against Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael G. Kaplan, Judge; L.T. Case No. DVCE-18-003912 (59).
Jordan H. Jordan of the Law Office of Jordan Howard Jordan, Coral Springs, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM.
Appellee filed a petition against appellant for protection against stalking. During a hearing, the parties verbally agreed to an injunction for no contact for one year. Appellant also agreed to surrender his gun and ammunition. The trial court entered a written final judgment, but included a finding that appellee was a victim of stalking, which was not a part of the agreement. Appellant moved to vacate the injunction, and the trial court denied the motion. We affirm the final judgment. However, because of the discrepancies between the face of the written order and the parties’ verbal agreement, we remand for the trial court to strike the second paragraph of Section II of the judgment, in which the trial court found that appellee was a victim of stalking, as well as all conditions not verbally agreed to by the parties, including the enforcement provisions in Section V that were never discussed. See Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“A trial court’s oral pronouncement must control over a later written order.”). Pursuant to the parties’ verbal agreement, the following provisions of the final judgment remain in force: Section III 1 (prohibited actions), 2a., b., and c. (no contact), and 3b. and c. (firearms and ammunition).
Affirmed and remanded with instructions. WARNER, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.