Cranney v. Cranney
206 So. 3d 162
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents (Michael and Kelly Cranney) litigated parental responsibility and timesharing for two minor sons; trial court entered an amended bifurcated final judgment.
- Trial court awarded mother 75% timesharing and father 25% timesharing.
- Both parents were awarded shared parental responsibility, but the court gave the mother ultimate decision-making authority.
- Trial court made findings under section 61.13(3), including that mother had performed most parental duties, children lived mostly with mother, parents lived far apart, father had not performed parenting tasks proportional to his time, and father failed routinely to engage in school/extracurricular activities.
- No transcript of the trial proceedings is in the record on appeal.
- Trial court found father had been openly hostile and communicated inappropriately with mother; family counseling was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cranney) | Defendant's Argument (Kelly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of 25% timesharing awarded to father | Trial court abused discretion; overly relied on father’s hostile communications without findings children were affected | Trial court relied on best-interest findings (parental history, distance, father’s limited parenting performance) | Affirmed — appellate court limited by absent transcript; father did not show miscarriage of justice |
| Award of ultimate decision-making authority to mother despite shared responsibility | Father argued sole ultimate authority nullifies shared responsibility and was unsupported by findings of detriment | Mother argued hostility justified giving her final authority | Reversed — award of ultimate authority was an abuse of discretion; no specific findings that shared responsibility would be detrimental and no sufficient history of inability to cooperate |
| Trial court’s refusal to allow father to call mother’s attorney as witness | Father argued error in denial | Mother defended privilege/proper trial rulings | Rejected on appeal without further comment |
| Standard of appellate review given absent transcript | Father contended factual errors should be reviewed | Mother relied on trial court findings in written order | Appellate court applied presumption of correctness and required a showing of miscarriage of justice to reverse where no transcript exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) (appellate review limited without trial transcript)
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (requiring miscarriage-of-justice showing when record lacks transcript)
- Hoirup v. Hoirup, 862 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversal only when error appears on face of judgment absent transcript)
- Monacelli v. Gonzalez, 883 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (same principle re: appellate limitations without transcript)
- Gerencser v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (shared parental responsibility requires parents to confer on major decisions)
- Fazzaro v. Fazzaro, 110 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (award of ultimate responsibility not supported merely by parental hostility without evidence of continuing inability to cooperate)
- Bader v. Bader, 639 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (trial court must find shared responsibility would be detrimental to award sole parental responsibility)