Florida Second District Court of Appeal · Family Law
Family LawEquitable DistributionPostdissolution Procedureequitable distributionpostdissolutiondelay in entry of judgmentsupplemental final judgmentrehearing
Facts
The amended final judgment deciding equitable distribution was entered one year after the dissolution hearing, largely because the attorneys failed to agree on an order. The Husband challenged discrepancies between what the trial court ordered at the final hearing and what the written final judgment reflected regarding the value attributed to the parties' Kemper fund and each party's liability for postdissolution mortgage, household expenses, and taxes. The trial court rejected those objections as involving de minimis amounts. The disputed differences amounted to several thousand dollars.
Issue
Whether the trial court erred by denying rehearing and relief from the supplemental final judgment where, after a substantial delay in entry of the judgment, the written judgment allegedly differed from the court's rulings at the final hearing on equitable distribution and related postdissolution obligations. Also, whether the trial court could dismiss those discrepancies as de minimis without a more precise inquiry.
Rule
A trial judge bears responsibility for ensuring timely entry of a final judgment. When delay in entering the order results in possible inaccuracies between the court's hearing rulings and the written judgment, and the discrepancies concern several thousand dollars in equitable distribution or related obligations, the matter should not be dismissed as de minimis without precise inquiry; reversal and rehearing may be required.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
After a bench hearing in Tampa on postdissolution equitable distribution, the judge announced that Nora Ellison would receive credit for a retirement subaccount valued at $18,000 and that Liam Ellison would bear half of certain carrying costs on the former marital condo. Eleven months later, a written supplemental judgment prepared after unsuccessful exchanges between counsel listed the subaccount at $14,200 and assigned all condo carrying costs to Liam, a difference of about $5,100 overall.
If Liam timely moves for rehearing and to vacate, arguing the written judgment materially differs from the judge’s oral rulings, how should an appellate court most likely rule if the trial court denied relief as involving only minor amounts?
Explanation. The majority rule is not that every delay requires reversal, but that a substantial delay can allow inaccuracies to creep into the written judgment. When a party specifically identifies discrepancies between oral rulings and the later written judgment concerning equitable distribution or related obligations, and the difference is several thousand dollars, the trial court should not brush the matter aside as de minimis without a more precise inquiry. The proper disposition is reversal and remand for rehearing, not appellate recalculation. (Derived from Locke v. Locke (n.d.).)