LINDA CHIVARI F/K/A LINDA CHIVARI FERRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
JASON FERRELL, 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.
The court held that the submission of a proposed judgment by one party does not automatically require reversal if the opposing party had an opportunity to object and the court made modifications.
The wife appealed a dissolution judgment, arguing it was reversible per se because the husband submitted the proposed judgment. The trial court had ma…
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 Opportunity To Object cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant wife argues that the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is per se reversible because the judgment was supplied to the court by the husband. She relies on Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla.2004), which we find distinguishable.
In Perlow the trial court made no changes to a twenty-five page final judgment submitted by wife’s counsel and signed the judgment two hours after receiving it. The husband, who did not have counsel, was not furnished a copy nor given an opportunity to object. The holding of Perlow was:
(1) the trial judge may ask both parties or one party to submit a proposed final judgment; (2) if proposed final judgments are filed, each party should be given an opportunity to review the other party’s proposed final judgment and make objections; (3) if only one party submits a proposed final judgment, there must be an opportunity for review and objections by the opposing party; and (4) prior to requesting proposed final judgments, the trial judge should, when possible, indicate on the record the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
875 So. 2d at 384.
In the present case, six weeks after the trial, the husband sent the trial judge a proposed judgment and served a copy on the wife’s counsel. A month after that, with no objection, the court signed the judgment; however, the court made a change by deleting the provision requiring the wife to pay the husband’s attorney’s fees. The court wrote in that each party would bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. Because of the time differences, because the proposed judgment was furnished to the other side and afforded an opportunity to object, and because of the changes made in the judgment by the court, this case is distinguishable from Perlow.
We have considered the other issue raised by the wife and find it to be without merit. Affirmed.
FARMER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryan v. Bryan, 930 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…rlow, 875 So. 2d at 390 n. 5. The trial court actually ruled in the wife’s favor on her claim for assault and battery, even though the husband’s proposed final judgment suggested otherwise, and made other substantive changes. See Chivari v. Ferrell, 909 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Perlow was distinguishable “because the proposed judgment was furnished to the other side and afforded an opportunity to object, and because of the changes made in the judgment by…
-
Hillier v. City OF Plantation, 935 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…s not a mandatory requirement. The essential requirement of Perloiv is notice to the other side of the submission of a proposed final judgment and the opportunity to object. See e.g. In re T.D., 924 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Chivari v. Ferrell, 909 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and DeMello v. Buckman, 916 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Reversal is not required simply because the court adopted a final judgment prepared by one of the parties where they have been given sufficient time to prepare and subm…
-
Funderdome, LLC v. Woolbright Dev., Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)