Clark v. Clark
147 So. 3d 655
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parties: Donald Clark (Husband) appealed a final judgment dissolving his 16‑year marriage to Chrystal Clark (Wife).
- Wife’s petition sought dissolution, a parenting plan/time‑sharing, distribution of assets/liabilities, and child support; it did not request alimony or attorney’s fees.
- Husband generally admitted allegations in his answer, expressly acknowledging reasonable child support; he did not appear at the final hearing though he received proper notice.
- The trial court conducted the hearing in Husband’s absence, adopted Wife’s proposed five‑page final judgment verbatim, and awarded (among other things) sole parental responsibility to Wife, child support, equitable distribution, permanent periodic alimony, and attorney’s fees.
- There was no child support guideline worksheet in the file and the proposed final judgment included matters not litigated or pled (alimony, attorney’s fees); the court made few on‑the‑record findings.
- The appellate court affirmed dissolution, time‑sharing, and entitlement to support; it reversed and remanded alimony and attorney’s fees, and remanded the amounts for child support and equitable distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly adopted Wife’s proposed final judgment verbatim | Wife relied on her proposed judgment as reflecting the hearing outcome | Husband argued adoption without independent judicial analysis created appearance of no independent judgment | Court agreed with Husband; trial judge must perform independent analysis and not adopt verbatim submissions as a substitute for findings |
| Whether court could award alimony/attorney’s fees not pleaded in complaint | Wife asserted pretrial compliance put Husband on notice of these requests | Husband argued unpled relief cannot be awarded and pretrial compliance does not substitute for pleadings; absence at hearing is not consent | Court held alimony and attorney’s fees were not properly pled or tried by consent; reversed those awards |
| Whether granting Wife sole parental responsibility without Husband’s presence violated fairness | Wife sought sole parental responsibility in her pleadings/pretrial materials | Husband argued lack of opportunity to testify/participate undermined fairness of award | Court affirmed the parenting plan/time sharing (sole responsibility) but noted procedural issues on other matters; time sharing entitlement sustained |
| Whether equitable distribution and child support awards were supported by competent evidence | Wife submitted proposed distributions and intended to file guideline worksheet | Husband contended distribution and support amounts lacked evidentiary foundation and there was no guideline worksheet | Court affirmed entitlement to child support but reversed/remanded the amounts and equitable distribution for further consideration due to insufficient findings/evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So.2d 383 (Fla. 2004) (trial judges must perform independent analysis and not adopt a party’s proposed final judgment verbatim)
- Sugrim v. Sugrim, 649 So.2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (issues properly before the court must be raised in pleadings or tried without objection)
- Kratzer v. Reimiller, 552 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversing awards of alimony and attorney’s fees when not pleaded)
- Savage v. Savage, 955 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (pretrial compliance is not a substitute for amending the complaint to request relief)