Sedky v. Ibrahim

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sedky v. Ibrahim

211 So. 3d 80, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 482

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 2017

DocketNo. 4D15-2376

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 So. 3d 80 (Sedky v. Ibrahim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sedky v. Ibrahim, 211 So. 3d 80, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 482 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Per Curiam.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and/or clarification, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following in its place.

Caroline Sedky, the wife, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In its final judgment, the lower court stated that the parties’ children could travel to Egypt if both parents consent. However, in the court’s parenting plan, the court ordered that the children “shall not” travel to Egypt. As these two statements are inconsistent with one another, we remand for the lower court to clarify the final judgment and parenting plan. See Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); see also Pope v. Langowski, 115 [81]*81So.3d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (remanding for clarification where the parenting plan was inconsistent). We find the remaining issues on appeal to be without merit and affirm without comment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Gerber, Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Per Curiam.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and/or clarification, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following in its place.

Caroline Sedky, the wife, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In its final judgment, the lower court stated that the parties’ children could travel to Egypt if both parents consent. However, in the court’s parenting plan, the court ordered that the children “shall not” travel to Egypt. As these two statements are inconsistent with one another, we remand for the lower court to clarify the final judgment and parenting plan. See Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); see also Pope v. Langowski, 115 [81]*81So.3d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (remanding for clarification where the parenting plan was inconsistent). We find the remaining issues on appeal to be without merit and affirm without comment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Gerber, Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 So. 3d 80, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sedky-v-ibrahim-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack