ZACKERY L. STOKES, APPELLANT,
v.
SAKEENAH A. STOKES, 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 reversed and remanded a family law order modifying a parenting plan because two parts of the trial court's order, entered two weeks apart, contained inconsistent relief regarding timesharing and parental responsibilities.
A trial court order modifying a parenting plan must be reversed and remanded when its two component parts award inconsistent relief and the trial court fails to clarify the inconsistencies on the record.
[1] A trial court order modifying a parenting plan must be internally consistent, and if two component parts of the order award conflicting relief, the order must be reversed…
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 intelligenceThe trial court entered two orders two weeks apart concerning competing petitions for modification of a parenting plan. The first order modified the f…
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 Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order entered in two parts, two weeks apart. In the first part, an order modifying final judgment, the trial court engaged in the required statutory analysis and made detailed findings of fact concerning the issues raised in competing petitions for modification of a parenting plan. This order would ordinarily be affirmed as it is supported by competent substantial evidence. However, the second order, an order modifying parenting plan and timesharing schedule, purports to award the Former Wife relief which is at odds with the first order. Inasmuch as the trial court prepared both *243parts of the order and denied rehearing without placing its rationale on the record, we are unable to resolve these inconsistencies from the face of the record. Hence, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings for the trial court to enter an order that is consistent throughout. See Sedky v. Ibrahim, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2665, 211 So.3d 80, 2017 WL 192030 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 30, 2016) (remanding for clarification of the final judgment and parenting plan due to inconsistent statements); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remanding for entry of a consistent order regarding timesharing).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A. A. v. D. W. (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
-
Dimo Veselinov Panov v. Panova (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Justice v. Justice, 80 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Sedky v. Sameh Ibrahim, 211 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)