Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
203 So. 3d 186
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties married in Jamaica (1992); two adult children; dissolution filed by Claudette Wilkinson in 2012.
- Major assets: two homes (primary in foreclosure), vehicles (including a Hyundai Elantra), a 401(k), and sizeable secured and unsecured debts.
- Trial focused on equitable distribution; both parties testified; court made extensive oral findings and directed Former Wife’s counsel to prepare the final judgment.
- Trial court adopted Former Wife’s proposed final judgment verbatim; the written order contains valuations and liability figures that differ from the court’s oral pronouncement.
- The record contains internal inconsistencies in the oral ruling, discrepancies between oral and written rulings, and mathematical/calculation errors in the equalization payment.
- Appellate disposition: affirmed in part (dissolution and most of the judgment), reversed as to equitable distribution, remanded for correction; Former Wife’s cross-appeal dismissed as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilkinson) | Defendant's Argument (Wilkinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adopting the wife’s proposed order verbatim invalidates the final judgment for lack of independent judicial judgment | Former Husband: verbatim adoption shows trial court didn’t exercise independent judgment; invalidates final judgment | Former Wife: verbatim adoption alone is not reversible error if judgment reflects court’s independent findings | Court: Verbatim adoption raises concern; not per se reversible but must conform to oral findings and be supported by evidence—equitable distribution reversed due to inconsistencies/errors |
| Whether discrepancies between oral findings and written judgment require reversal | Former Husband: many material valuation/liability discrepancies show written order may not reflect court’s independent judgment | Former Wife: discrepancies insufficient to overturn where evidence supports judgment | Court: Multiple material inconsistencies between oral and written findings warrant reversal of equitable distribution portion |
| Whether mathematical errors in equalization require correction | Former Husband: calculation errors produced wrong equalization payment | Former Wife: errors are minor/typographical | Court: Mathematical errors must be corrected; miscalculation contributed to reversal of equitable distribution |
| Whether Former Wife’s cross-appeal should proceed despite late filing | Former Husband: (n/a) | Former Wife: cross-appeal filed after deadlines without seeking leave | Court: Cross-appeal dismissed as untimely for failure to move for leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004) (trial judge must exercise independent judgment; adoption of counsel’s proposed order cannot substitute for judicial analysis)
- Chetram v. Singh, 984 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (court must ensure written judgment conforms to oral findings and evidence)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 781 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (review of adopted orders to confirm independent judicial analysis)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (appellate courts must correct mathematical errors in dissolution orders)
- Noone v. Noone, 727 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (mathematical corrections in equitable distribution)
- Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (discussing reconciliation of oral and written findings)
- Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (importance of consistency between oral pronouncement and written order)
- Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (same principle)
- Y.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 830 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (on resolving inconsistencies in the record)
- Greene v. Suhor, 783 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (untimely cross-appeal dismissal when leave not sought)
- Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010) (failure to raise alimony on appeal waives objection to its denial)