DAVID JAMES CONKLIN, JR.
v.
XIMENA PEREZ
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 circuit court's non-final order granting attorney's fees to the appellee was affirmed, with remand solely to correct a scrivener's error in the caption of a paragraph.
[1] A scrivener's error in an order, such as the incorrect designation of a party's caption, that has no substantive effect on the court's ruling and does not affect the meri…
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“This is merely a scrivener's error and has no substantive effect because the court's ruling was based on the correct financial affidavits.”
Court's analysis of the error in the order
In a paternity proceeding, the circuit court granted Perez's motion for attorney's fees against Conklin. The order contained a scrivener's error in pa…
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 Paternity Establishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant David Conklin appeals the circuit court’s non-final order granting Appellee Ximena Perez’s motion for attorney’s fees in the underlying paternity proceeding. We affirm as to all issues raised but remand to correct a scrivener’s error in the circuit court’s order. Paragraph 9 of the order, which provides a summary of Appellee’s financial affidavit, incorrectly refers to Appellee as “Respondent” rather than “Petitioner.” This is merely a scrivener’s error and has no substantive effect because the court’s ruling was based on the correct financial affidavits. See Subramanian v. Subramanian, 260 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Accordingly, we affirm and remand only for the trial court to correct the use of “Respondent” in Paragraph 9 to “Petitioner.” See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Because the scrivener’s error is clearly apparent from the record, we remand for the circuit court to correct the error by amended final judgment.”).
Affirmed and remanded with instructions. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pompano Senior Squadron Flying Club, Inc. v. Borer (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…l issues raised without comment. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the reference to Michael Borer as a recovering party in the final judgment because he previously voluntarily dismissed his claim. See generally Conklin v. Perez, 321 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming and remanding to correct scrivener’s error). Affirmed and remanded with instructions. WARNER, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion…
-
World Pub. Co. v. United States, 169 F.2d 186 (10th Cir. 1948)…62 F. 2d 754; Chicago Stock Yards Co. v. C. I. R., 41 B.T.A. 590; Id., 1 Cir., 129 F. 2d 937; 318 U.S. 693, 63 S.Ct. 843, 87 L.Ed. 1086; Trico Products Co. v. C. I. R., 46 B.T.A. 346; Id., 2 Cir., 137 F. 2d 424; Whitney Chain & Mfg. Co. v. C. I. R., 3 T. C. 1109; Id., 2 Cir., 149 F. 2d 936; Semagraph Co. v. C. I. R., 4 Cir., 152 F. 2d 62; Helvering v. Nat. Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 58 S.Ct. 932, 82 L.Ed. 1346; [*188] McCutchim Drilling Co. v. C. I. R., 5 Cir., 143 F. 2d 480; J. M. Perry & Co. v. C. I. R.,…
-
Whitney Chain & MFG. Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 149 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1945)…es upon its shareholders. There is no dispute as to any of the evidentiary facts, but it is urged that the Tax Court’s ultimate conclusions are arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence. It is unnecessary to repeat the facts as reported in 3 T.C. 1109. In brief, it may be said that the taxpayer’s section 102 income for 1939 was some $138,000, of which about $68,000 was distributed as dividends and about $70,000 was retained, because its directors foresaw the necessity of heavy expenditures in ord…
Authorities Cited
- Franz Edward Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Srinath Subramanian v. Veena Subramanian, 260 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)