Stokes v. Stokes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stokes v. Stokes

210 So. 3d 242, 2017 WL 519310, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1500

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 2017

DocketCase 2D16-225

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 So. 3d 242 (Stokes v. Stokes) 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

Stokes v. Stokes, 210 So. 3d 242, 2017 WL 519310, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1500 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal of an order entered in two parts, two weeks apart. In the first part, an order modifying final judgment, the trial court engaged in the required statutory analysis and made detailed findings of fact concerning the issues raised in competing petitions for modification of a parenting plan. This order would ordinarily be affirmed as it is supported by competent substantial evidence. However, the second order, an order modifying parenting plan and timesharing schedule, purports to award the Former Wife relief which is at odds with the first order. Inasmuch as the trial court prepared both *243 parts of the order and denied rehearing without placing its rationale on the record, we are unable to resolve these inconsistencies from the face of the record. Hence, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings for the trial court to enter an order that is consistent throughout. See Sedky v. Ibrahim, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2665, 211 So.3d 80, 2017 WL 192030 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 30, 2016) (remanding for clarification of the final judgment and parenting plan due to inconsistent statements); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remanding for entry of a consistent order regarding timesharing).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

KELLY and WALLACE, JJ, Concur.

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

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal of an order entered in two parts, two weeks apart. In the first part, an order modifying final judgment, the trial court engaged in the required statutory analysis and made detailed findings of fact concerning the issues raised in competing petitions for modification of a parenting plan. This order would ordinarily be affirmed as it is supported by competent substantial evidence. However, the second order, an order modifying parenting plan and timesharing schedule, purports to award the Former Wife relief which is at odds with the first order. Inasmuch as the trial court prepared both *243 parts of the order and denied rehearing without placing its rationale on the record, we are unable to resolve these inconsistencies from the face of the record. Hence, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings for the trial court to enter an order that is consistent throughout. See Sedky v. Ibrahim, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2665, 211 So.3d 80, 2017 WL 192030 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 30, 2016) (remanding for clarification of the final judgment and parenting plan due to inconsistent statements); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So.3d 405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remanding for entry of a consistent order regarding timesharing).

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

KELLY and WALLACE, JJ, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 So. 3d 242, 2017 WL 519310, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-stokes-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack