A. A.
v.
D. W.
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 final judgment of paternity that is internally inconsistent on its face—where the written findings conflict with the incorporated parenting plan—must be reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter an amended judgment that is consistent throughout.
[1] An internal inconsistency between the written findings in a final judgment and an incorporated parenting plan regarding timesharing and parental decision-making authority…
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“when the error appears on the face of the judgment, it should be corrected.”
The court cited this principle to explain that reversible error apparent on the face of a judgment need not be supported by a transcript.
The Father filed a petition to determine paternity of the parties' minor child. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered a final judgment of pat…
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 Ultimate Decision-Making Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
A.A., Appellant, v. D.W., Appellee. No. 2D20-234 September3, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Cecelia Moore Wilhite, Associate Senior Judge. Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee. KHOUZAM, Judge. A.A., the Mother, timely appeals a final judgment of paternity. Because the final judgment is internally inconsistent on its face, we
2 reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an amended final judgment correcting the inconsistencies. D.W., the Father, filed a petition to determine paternity of the parties' minor child. Both parties filed competing proposed parenting plans. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered the final judgment of paternity, which incorporated and attached a parenting plan as well as a child support guidelines worksheet. The Mother moved for rehearing, pointing out that the findings in the final judgment conflicted with the incorporated parenting plan, but the motion was denied. She then filed this appeal. As a threshold issue, we note that the Mother has not provided a transcript of the final hearing. "[T]he failure to provide either a transcript or proper substitute for one, such as a reconciliation of the facts by the parties and trial court judge, is usually fatal." Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)). However, this principle does not control where reversible error is apparent on the face of the judgment. Id.; see Soto v. Soto, 974 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (acknowledging "that even
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Eneida Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Soto v. Soto, 974 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Justice v. Justice, 80 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Zackery L. Stokes v. Sakeenah A. Stokes, 210 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Couture v. Couture, 313 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Bell v. Broch, 230 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)