MARILIA R. HUNTER
v.
ANDREW ROBERTSON
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 improperly delegate its decision-making authority by adopting a party's proposed final judgment when the judgment is not a verbatim adoption, the opposing party had opportunity to submit a competing proposal and object, and the court actively participated in the proceedings.
[1] A trial court does not improperly delegate its judicial authority by adopting a party's proposed final judgment when the judgment is not a verbatim adoption, the opposing…
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 intelligenceIn a family law dispute, the trial court adopted the wife's proposed final judgment without making oral findings or conclusions of law. The husband ch…
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 Delegation Of Decision-Making Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Cabrera v. Cabrera, 987 So. 2d 753, 754–55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (rejecting husband’s argument that trial court’s adoption of wife’s proposed final judgment after failing to make oral findings or conclusions of law was improper delegation of its decision-making authority under Perlow
v. Berg–Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004), because (1) final judgment was
not verbatim adoption of proposed order; (2) husband had opportunity to submit proposed final judgment and object to wife’s proposed final judgment;
and (3) trial court actively participated in hearing); see also Musgrave v. Musgrave, 290 So. 3d 536, 541 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“[U]pon rehearing the Husband failed to raise an objection to the proposed final judgment based upon the ‘verbatim’ theory, and he cannot now complain error for the first time in this appeal.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Cabrera v. Cabrera, 987 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Musgrave v. Musgrave, 290 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)