Malone v. Percival, 2D03-3054.
| Decision Date | 09 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-3054.,2D03-3054. |
| Citation | 875 So.2d 1286 |
| Parties | N. Arnold MALONE, Appellant, v. Kelly Y. PERCIVAL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Elizabeth S. Wheeler of Berg & Wheeler, P.A., Brandon, for Appellant.
Kelly Y. Percival, pro se.
N. Arnold Malone (former husband) appeals an order awarding attorneys' fees to Kelly Y. Percival (former wife), as well as an addendum to the final judgment entered in an action for dissolution of marriage. We conclude that the former husband has presented no ground justifying reversal of the order on attorneys' fees and therefore affirm that order. With respect to the addendum to the final judgment of dissolution, however, we conclude that reversal is required because the addendum—which purports to correct scrivener's errors—in fact constitutes an unauthorized amendment of the final judgment.
The judgment of dissolution in this matter was entered on March 4, 2003. On April 9, 2003, the former wife filed a motion to correct scrivener's errors. The motion requested that the court order the former husband to pay child support until the parties' son graduated from high school in May 2004, beyond the time set forth in the judgment, which was until the son's eighteenth birthday in September 2003. In addition, the motion sought inclusion in the judgment of a provision that the former husband provide yearly proof to the former wife that he was in compliance with a provision of the judgment requiring him to maintain life insurance of at least $100,000 to secure support payments, with the former wife as the beneficiary.
On June 18, 2003, the circuit court entered the addendum to the final judgment, which included the provisions sought in the former wife's motion. In addition, with respect to a provision in the final judgment requiring the former wife to pay the former husband $36,355.80 to buy out his interest in the family homes, the trial court sua sponte included in the addendum the following provision:
That [s]imultaneously with being paid $36,355.80 as his share of equity in the marital home, the Former Husband shall execute any and all deeds, bills of sale, endorsements, forms[,] conveyances[,] or other documents, and perform any act necessary or required to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions herein set forth. In the event of the failure of the Former Husband to perform as agreed herein, this order shall constitute and operate as such properly executed document. Public and private officials are authorized and directed to accept a properly certified copy herein in lieu of the document regularly required for the conveyance or transfer. However, this executory clause shall not eliminate or diminish either parties' obligation to properly execute documents or otherwise perform any action required by the terms and conditions of this Court order.
"A trial court may correct a clerical error `at any time on its own initiative' pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a), but judicial errors, which include errors that affect the substance of a judgment, must be corrected within ten days pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530[ (g)], or by appellate review." Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So.2d 237, 238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As stated in Byers v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levy v. Levy, No. 2D03-2903
...Thus the amendment was unauthorized under rule 1.540(a). See Padot v. Padot, 891 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Malone v. Percival, 875 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Therefore, we vacate the amendment to final judgment of dissolution of Equitable Distribution During the pendency of the dis......
-
Padot v. Padot, No. 2D03-1011
...Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So.2d 164, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1704 (Fla. 2d DCA July 23, 2004). In Malone v. Percival, 875 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), this court held that an addendum to a final judgment of dissolution, which purported to correct scrivener's errors, cons......
-
Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Williams v. Annis, 2D14–301.
...in the amount of child support is considered a substantive change which may not be corrected by rule 1.540(a). See Malone v. Percival, 875 So.2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Thomas v. Thomas, 675 So.2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Similarly, a mistaken view of......
-
Jankowski v. Dey, 2D09–5388.
...Shelby, Ohio v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1, 3–4 (Fla.1970); Padot v. Padot, 891 So.2d 1079, 1084–85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Malone v. Percival, 875 So.2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); King v. State, 870 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).IV. CONCLUSION Like the circuit court, we deplore the collusive e......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...if this burden is met, trial court should then set aside order under rule 1.540(a) based on clerical error); Malone v. Percival, 875 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(addendum to final judgment, which purported to correct scrivener’s error pursuant to rule 1.540(a), constituted unauthorized am......