ROCHELLE SILVER
v.
GREGORY GOODRICH
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.
Mother appealed a trial court order finding her in indirect civil contempt and modifying timesharing, arguing the written order was inconsistent with the court's oral pronouncement regarding overnight visitations. The appellate court agreed, reversing the portion regarding visitation schedule and remanding for the written order to be amended to conform to the oral pronouncement granting weekly overnight visitations on Wednesdays rather than alternating Thursdays.
The oral pronouncement controls, and the written order must be reversed and remanded for amendment to conform to the oral pronouncement. The trial court is instructed to amend the written order to state that the Mother shall have weekly overnight visitations with the child every Wednesday.
[1] When a trial court's written order is inconsistent with its earlier oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must be reversed and amended…
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“When a trial court's written order is inconsistent with its earlier oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally controls and the written order must be reversed.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for resolving conflicts between oral pronouncements and written orders in trial court proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt a hearing on a motion for contempt and to modify timesharing, the trial court orally pronounced that the Mother would have weekly overnight visitat…
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
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James L. Martz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013DR009536XXXXMB.
Samuel Alexander of Alexander Appellate Law P.A., DeLand, for appellant.
Eddie Stephens, Caryn A. Stevens, and Diana M. Minnocci of Stephens & Stevens, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
DAMOORGIAN, J. Rochelle Silver (“the Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order finding her in indirect civil contempt for denying Gregory Goodrich (“the Father”) timesharing and granting the Father’s motion to modify timesharing. The Mother argues, among other things, that the trial court erred by entering a written order that was inconsistent with its oral pronouncement regarding overnight visitations. We agree on this point, and reverse with instructions that the trial court amend the written order to conform to its prior oral pronouncement. We affirm as to all other issues without further comment. At the hearing on the motion for contempt and to modify timesharing, the trial court orally pronounced that the Mother would have weekly overnight visitations with the child every Wednesday. The written order, however, grants the Mother overnight visitations on alternating Thursdays.
2
It is well established that “[w]hen a trial court’s written order is inconsistent with its earlier oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally controls and the written order must be reversed.” Johansson v. Johansson, 348 So. 3d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); see also Soldatich v. Jones, 290 So. 3d 497, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Cappola v. Cappola, 280 So. 3d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). As such, we reverse and remand solely for the trial court to amend the written order to conform to its prior oral pronouncement stating that the Mother shall have weekly overnight visitations with the child every Wednesday.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silver v. Goodrich, 348 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…lternating Thursdays. It is well established that “[w]hen a trial court’s written order is inconsistent with its earlier oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally controls and the written order must be reversed.” Johansson v. Johansson, 348 So. 3d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); see also Soldatich v. Jones, 290 So. 3d 497, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Cappola v. Cappola, 280 So. 3d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). As such, we reverse and remand…1 / 2
-
Johansson v. Juliet E. Johansson (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…ther portion of the refund was distributed. Analysis When a trial court’s written order is inconsistent with its earlier oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement generally controls and the written order must be reversed. See Soldatich v. Jones, 290 So. 3d 497, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Cappola v. Cappola, 280 So. 3d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Glick v. Glick, 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Here, the court’s written order is inconsistent with its earlier oral pronouncement as to the former h…
-
Raber v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Thaden v. State, 874 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Cappola v. Cappola, 280 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- Silver v. Goodrich, 348 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)