THOMAS Y. KANI
v.
RAYAUNA FEASTER
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 by adopting an appellee's proposed judgment when the court makes its own changes, additions, and deletions to that proposal and provides the opposing party adequate time to object before entry.
[1] A trial court's adoption of a proposed final judgment that includes the court's own substantive changes, additions, and deletions, entered after providing the opposing pa…
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 intelligenceThomas Y. Kani appealed a final judgment of paternity entered by the trial court. The trial court had received the appellee's proposed final judgment,…
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 Child Support Guidelines Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
October 6, 2023 PER CURIAM.
Thomas Y. Kani appeals the trial court’s final judgment of paternity rendered after trial. He raises two grounds for reversal. Kani asserts that under Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004), and its progeny, the trial court erred in adopting, verbatim, Appellee’s proposed final judgment. The record, however, reflects that the final judgment entered by the trial court included its own changes, additions, and deletions to Appellee’s proposed final
judgment and was entered some ten days after Kani had received the proposed judgment and thus had the ability to notify the trial court of any objections. Accordingly, we affirm on this issue.1 On Kani’s remaining ground for relief, we affirm on the authority of Hester v. Hester, 705 So. 2d 721, 721 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (“In the absence of a record of the final hearing on November 20, 1996, there is no basis to reverse the appealed judgment on evidentiary grounds. The child support guidelines worksheet attached to the judgment has sufficient information to allow review of the guidelines calculation, and we find no error.”).
AFFIRMED. LAMBERT, HARRIS, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Sandmann v. Gaelen B. Canning, 705 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)