GUILLERMO HUETE
v.
THELMA HUETE-SIERRA
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 trial court's orders regarding relocation and durational alimony are affirmed, but the order must be clarified and amended on remand due to internal inconsistencies regarding retroactive child support and alimony amounts.
[1] When an appellate record contains only a partial trial transcript, meaningful appellate review may be significantly impeded, particularly where the trial court's findings…
[2] A trial court order that contains facial inconsistencies regarding material terms such as the amount of retroactive child support, monthly retroactive child support payme…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court's decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.”
The court cited this principle when noting that appellant's submission of only a partial trial transcript hindered appellate review.
Guillermo Huete appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the trial court granted his ex-spouse's petition to relocate with their d…
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 Relocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Guillermo Huete appeals the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage and relocation. The trial court granted Appellee Thelma Huete-Sierra’s petition for relocation with the parties’ daughter and awarded Appellee durational alimony.
We affirm the trial court’s determinations regarding both relocation and durational alimony. Appellant submitted only a partial trial transcript. See Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“The most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court’s decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.”).
However, the trial court’s order is facially inconsistent with respect to how much Appellant owes in retroactive child support, how much Appellant must pay monthly in retroactive child support, and whether Appellant is required to pay retroactive alimony. The trial court equivocated on each of these issues. For example, one portion of the order states that Appellant was required to pay retroactive alimony, whereas another portion states that Appellant is not required to pay retroactive alimony. We remand these three issues to the trial court to clarify its rulings and issue an amended judgment that is consistent with the record. See Rodriguez v. Medero, 17 So. 3d 867, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
GROSS, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Rodriguez v. Medero, 17 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)