MARIA ROSADO
v.
ERIC SAMUELSEN
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 circuit court's final judgment in a paternity case must be amended to include an orally pronounced requirement regarding a child's prescribed medication when the written order omits it.
[1] When a trial court makes an oral pronouncement of a material requirement during an evidentiary hearing, the final written judgment must be amended to include that require…
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“Child must take all prescribed medication.”
The court's oral ruling during the evidentiary hearing that was not included in the final written order.
In a paternity case, the circuit court made an oral ruling during the evidentiary hearing requiring the child to take all prescribed medication. Howev…
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 Paternity Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Maria Rosado appeals the circuit court’s final judgment of paternity and related relief, its order on retroactive child support, and its orders denying rehearing. We affirm without discussion as to all issues except one. As Appellant correctly argues, the circuit court’s written order did not include a requirement that the parties administer to J.E.S. (“Child”) his prescribed medication, even though the court made the following
oral ruling during the evidentiary hearing held in this matter: “Here’s another thing that’s going to be in [the order]. Child must take all prescribed medication.” The court’s final judgment of paternity and related relief does not contain any requirement that Child take his prescribed medication, only that the parties must evenly split medication expenses. Therefore, we reverse the order insofar as it fails to include this orally pronounced requirement, and we remand for the court to issue an amended order that conforms to its oral pronouncement. See Saucier v. Nowak, 200 So. 3d 1298, 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
EDWARDS, C.J., and WALLIS and PRATT, JJ., concur.