Gallardo v. Gallardo, 91-1198

Decision Date24 December 1991
Docket NumberNo. 91-1198,91-1198
Citation593 So.2d 522
Parties17 Fla. L. Weekly D112 Debra GALLARDO, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Manuel G. GALLARDO, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Lawrence G. Ropes, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Manuel G. Gallardo, in pro. per.

Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Debra Gallardo appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage;

Manuel Gallardo cross-appeals from that same judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm on the appeal in chief but remand for clarification of the husband's obligation to contribute to day care expenses; on the cross-appeal, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

In its oral pronouncements that followed the final hearing, the trial court resolved various disputed issues, as follows. 1

1) As to the husband's share of day care expenses, the court ordered him to pay one-half of those expenses each month.

2) The court found that the debts listed by the parties were joint marital obligations to be paid off by both parties jointly.

3) The court awarded the wife primary residential custody of the child and made very specific arrangements regarding the husband's visitation rights. 2 During the husband's extended visitation with the child during the summer, the wife was to pay the husband $257.20.

4) The court found that the marital home was the only asset of the parties, and then appeared to announce that the house was to be sold and the proceeds split. The wife was to remain in the marital home until the sale, and each party was to be responsible for one-half of the mortgage payments. 3

The trial court did not reduce its oral rulings to a final judgment until four months after the final hearing. In the final judgment, the trial court ruled as follows:

1) The husband was ordered to pay half of the day care expenses on a bimonthly basis.

2) The parties were to "hold each other harmless and indemnify each other from any liability as of the date of the final hearing."

3) The husband was awarded visitation on alternating weekends and holidays, with an extended summer visitation of one month. During the extended visitation, the wife was to pay the husband $157.20 in child support.

4) The court awarded the wife exclusive use and possession of the marital home, ordering her to be responsible for all mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and repairs.

We find no merit to any point raised by the wife's appeal. However, because the term "bimonthly" is ambiguous and can mean either twice each month or once every two months, we remand for a clarification regarding the frequency of the day care contribution imposed on the husband.

On the husband's cross-appeal, we agree that the trial court erred in failing to conform the final judgment to the oral pronouncements. Cf. Meyer v. Meyer, 525 So.2d 462, 464 (Fla. 4th DCA) (entry of written judgment by trial court containing provision materially different from that which court announced at trial was substantive error, not clerical mistake), rev. denied, 536 So.2d 244 (Fla.1988); Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So.2d 311, 313-314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (same). We therefore reverse those portions of the final judgment that deal with the husband's visitation rights and the amount of child support that the wife was to pay the husband during the month-long summer visitation, and remand with directions to conform the written judgment to the court's oral pronouncements.

Furthermore, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the wife sole use and possession of the marital home. Although the trial court did not specify the basis for this award, we find no support in the record for the award as lump sum alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). 4 Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the final judgment that awarded the wife sole possession and occupancy of the marital home and remand with directions to award the wife exclusive possession of the marital home until the minor child reaches the age of majority. See Satanonchai v. Satanonchai, 522 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (trial court should have awarded wife exclusive use and occupancy of marital home until children, who were in her custody, reached age of majority); Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (exclusive possession of marital home by custodial parent until child reaches majority proper incident of child support...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Castillo v. Castillo, 93-25
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 9, 1993
    ...the children. Continued use and possession of the marital home is proper as an incident of a child support award. See Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So.2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 604 So.2d 486 (Fla.1992); Cruz v. Cruz, 574 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 563 So.......
  • Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, Case No. 5D14-4285
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 2016
    ...3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)); Y.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 830 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1......
  • Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 2016
    ...3 So.3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So.2d 649, 650–51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ; Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ); Y.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 830 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So.2d 1097......
  • Ulano v. Anderson, 92-1881
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1993
    ...(Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (final judgment which does not conform to trial court's oral pronouncement must be reversed); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (trial court erred in not conforming final judgment to oral pronouncements), rev. denied, 604 So.2d 486 (Fla.1992); Iv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT