ELMER P. WESTBERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA ANN WESTBERRY, APPELLEE
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.
This case involves a discrepancy between a Florida trial court's oral pronouncement of a divorce decree and the final written decree. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case because the written decree contained provisions not included in the oral ruling.
No, a written final decree that materially differs from the trial court's oral pronouncement does not conform to the court's true holding and is therefore invalid.
“The final decree entered in this divorce action does not conform with the chancellor's orally pronounced final decree at the close of the final hearing in the presence of both parties and their counsel.”
Establishes the core issue of the case: the discrepancy between the oral and written decrees.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court orally pronounced a final divorce decree granting divorce to the plaintiff-appellee and awarding periodic alimony. However, the writte…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
The final decree entered in this divorce action does not conform with the chancellor’s orally pronounced final decree at the close of the final hearing in the presence of both parties and their counsel.
The written final decree grants the divorce to both parties, whereas the oral pronouncement granted the divorce to the plaintiff-appellee.
The written final decree grants the home of the parties to the plaintiff-appellee as lump-sum alimony and also grants the plaintiff-appellee periodic alimony payments. The oral pronouncement of the court does not mention the award of the home and furnishings to be declared as lump-sum alimony to the plaintiff-appellee.
Further, there are two life insurance policies alluded to in the written final decree which are not even mentioned in the oral pronouncement of the court.
It was conceded in oral argument before this court that the written final decree was prepared by counsel for plaintiff-appellee and submitted to the chancellor, who was assigned to a judicial circuit other than his own, as he was preparing to return to his own circuit.
For the foregoing reasons this cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings and the entry of such final decree as the trial court deems necessary to conform with its true holding in this cause.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Enders v. Enders, 536 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…nd dissenting in part. I agree with reversal on the special equity issue raised by both parties, but would additionally remand to the trial court with direction to rule on the issue of rehabilitative alimony to the wife. Cf. Westberry v. Westberry, 226 So. 2d 405 (Fla.2d DCA 1969) (Written final divorce decree reversed and cause remanded where provisions of written decree failed to conform to orally pronounced final decree of the court). In the instant case, during the trial court’s closing comments, the fo…