KATHLEEN MARY OLIVER
v.
MARIANO JUAN OLIVER
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion or improperly delegate its authority by adopting a party's proposed order verbatim, provided the order is supported by competent substantial evidence and the trial court has conducted a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion or improperly delegate its decision-making authority by adopting verbatim a party's proposed order in a timesharing modificati…
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“Perlow 'did not prohibit a trial judge from adopting verbatim the proposed order of one of the parties,' but did 'caution that a party's proposed order 'cannot substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge'”
Court's discussion of proper standards for trial court adoption of party-proposed orders in timesharing matters
Kathleen Mary Oliver appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County modifying timesharing arrangements with Mariano Juan Oliv…
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 Modification Of Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Sordo v. Camblin, 130 So. 3d 743, 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“We review a trial court's modification of timesharing for an abuse of discretion, and we must affirm if the trial court's order is supported by competent substantial evidence”); Lewis v. Juliano, 242 So. 3d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“A trial court’s ruling on a timesharing issue is reviewed for an abuse of discretion”). See also Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Creances, S.A.S., 89 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding trial court’s adoption of party’s proposed order “did not run afoul of” Perlow v. Berg- Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004), noting there were no inconsistencies between the adopted order and the trial court’s earlier oral pronouncement and the other party was provided a meaningful opportunity to offer comments or objections); Dickson v. Curtis, No. 3D21-1086, 2022 WL 385929 at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 9, 2022) (holding trial court did not delegate its decision-making authority by adopting a party’s proposed order, and noting that Perlow “did not prohibit a trial judge from adopting verbatim the proposed order of one of the parties,” but did “caution that a party’s proposed order ‘cannot substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge’”) (quoting Perlow, 875 So. 2d at 390).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Créances, 89 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Sordo v. Camblin, 130 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Lewis v. Juliano, 242 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)