ZULEMA O'CONNOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS O'CONNOR, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's final judgment dissolving the marriage and remanded only to correct a scrivener's error in the child support provisions between two paragraphs of the judgment.
In the absence of a hearing transcript, an appellate court's review is limited to correcting errors of law apparent on the face of the judgment, and the trial court's factual findings are presumed correct.
[1] In the absence of a hearing transcript, an appellate court's review of a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage case is limited to correcting errors of law apparent…
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 intelligenceZulema O'Connor appealed from a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Thomas O'Connor, challenging aspects relating to the marital home, equitable…
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
Zulema O’Connor appeals from the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Thomas O’Connor. She challenges various aspects of the final judgment that pertain to the marital home, equitable distribution, time-sharing, child support, and alimony. There- is no transcript of the final hearing in the record, but the record contains “FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM MAY 14, 2014, TRIAL.”
In the absence of a transcript, the trial court’s factual findings are presumed correct, and our review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the judgment. See Mobley v. Mobley, 18 So.3d 724, 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that in the absence of a hearing transcript, an appellate court is limited to correcting errors of law apparent on the face of the judgment). Because we find no error in the trial court’s rulings, we affirm. However, the parties acknowledge that a discrepancy exists between paragraphs nine and twenty-five of the final judgment concerning the child support award. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for correction of the apparent scrivener’s error by amended final judgment. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So.2d 564, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Affirmed; remanded for correction of judgment.
KELLY, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Justine Frezza v. Frezza, 216 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…esponsible for the fees incurred by the former husband following her refusal to agree to the former husband’s proposed judgment. Therefore, the attorney’s fees provisions need to be clarified or corrected on re [*761] mand. Cf. O’Connor v. O’Connor, 184 So. 3d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (affirming final judgment of dissolution but remanding for correction of scrivener’s error); Lee v. Lee, 56 So. 3d 819, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (remanding for clarification of inherent conflict in the trial court’s treatment…
-
C. G. v. M. M. (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ok for employment in eastern Hillsborough County. The fact that the trial court's order directs that the 1The lack of a transcript of the proceedings below requires us to accept the trial court's factual findings as true. See O'Connor v. O'Connor, 184 So. 3d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("In the absence of a transcript, the trial court's factual findings are presumed correct, and our review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the judgment."). - 5 - prospective timesharing goes into effect if the m…
-
Juliegha Rae Baez v. Edwards (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Franz Edward Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Mobley v. Mobley, 18 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)