Schumaker v. Schumaker
Decision Date | 23 June 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 5D05-2073.,5D05-2073. |
Citation | 931 So.2d 271 |
Parties | Ronald S. SCHUMAKER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Theresa L. SCHUMAKER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cindy L. Lasky, of The Lasky Law Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Regina W. Sargeant and Patrick T. Canan of Canan Law, P.A., St. Augustine, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
The former husband, Ronald Schumaker, appeals and the former wife, Theresa Schumaker, cross appeals from a dissolution of marriage judgment. We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part, for further clarification or consideration.
The parties married in 1990 and Theresa filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in January of 2004. Three minor children were born to their marriage. Pending rendition of a final judgment, the trial court granted Theresa's motion for temporary support, temporary custody of the children, and exclusive use of the marital residence. Ronald was ordered to pay child support as well.
With respect to visitation, the court fashioned an unusual scheme: Ronald was granted the right of first refusal in lieu of the children being placed in day care or with other family members while Theresa was at work. The temporary order dated May 24, 2004, provided:
The Husband shall be granted the right of first refusal in lieu of any day care or other extended family members watching the children while the Wife is at work. The Wife has indicated that she will alter her work schedule to a daytime schedule if awarded exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home and that currently, she works at night to avoid any contact with the Husband. The Wife shall provide the Husband, to the extent practicable, a schedule at least ten days in advance of her work schedule so that each party can make the appropriate plans to watch the minor children, especially when the Wife is at work. Otherwise, the Husband shall have visitation every other weekend beginning Friday at 6:00 pm until Sunday at 6:00 pm.
The final hearing was held on January 27, 2005 and February 18, 2005. The court rendered its Final Judgment on March 23, 2005. The court granted Theresa residential custody of the children, with shared parental responsibility. It made detailed fact findings in support of this award. The Final Judgment stated, after "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:"
[A]nd the HUSBAND shall have reasonable visitation as ordered by this court on May 24, 2004.
The trial court found the parties had experienced a moderate to low standard of living during their marriage. They lived in a manufactured home valued at $140,000. Ronald had been "sporadically employed" during the marriage and they had an enormous credit card debt.
The court denied Theresa's requests for alimony and additional attorney's fees. It noted she was employed full time, 37.5 hours per week and earned $9.00 per hour. It found Ronald earned between $40,000 and $42,000 per year and that he did not have the ability to pay alimony. It denied Theresa any attorney's fees, not because of lack of need on her part, but because of Ronald's inability to pay, and the fact that he had paid $7,500 in temporary fees.
With regard to equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, the court assigned Ronald $32,774.68 in credit card debt and Theresa $23,667.97. It found the parties' retirement and deferred compensation plans were marital and assigned each party their own funds. It roughly equalized distribution of the parties' personal property.
The parties' major asset, the marital home, was intended to be equally divided, but the provision dealing with its disposition is complicated. The court found the home has an equity of $55,000 and is in need of remodeling. The court set aside $10,000 for remodeling, if the home is placed for sale. It awarded the home to Theresa and found each party has an interest in the home of $75,000, and at least a net of $37,000. It ruled that Theresa could sell the home at a reasonable price of 90% of the stipulated value and equally divide the proceeds. The costs for remodeling shall be held in escrow and if not used, should be distributed on a 50/50 basis. It gave Theresa six months to sell or refinance the home. After six months, Ronald was to have the opportunity to relocate into the home and sell or refinance it under the same terms. However, the court concluded that it would not order an involuntary sale of the home while the parties had minor children.
The parties filed motions for rehearing on April 1, 2005 and March 30, 2005, which the trial court denied. The trial court granted Theresa's motion for further consideration and set a hearing date of July 18, 2005. The hearing was held October 26, 2005 and an order rendered November 2, 2005. Theresa presented evidence that she was unable to refinance the marital home within the six months set out in the judgment because Ronald failed to pay off his assigned credit card debts, which affected her credit rating.
However, Ronald had filed his notice of appeal June 22, 2005 and Theresa filed her cross appeal July 6, 2005. Because the trial court had lost jurisdiction to deal with the issues,1 it did not rule on the merits other than to suspend enforcement of the provisions dealing with Theresa's obligation to refinance or sell the marital home within six months.
Ronald's point on appeal deals solely with visitation. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to integrate the visitation language into the final judgment rather than referencing it. Once a final judgment of dissolution is rendered, the final judgment supersedes any prior temporary orders. Bell v. Bell, 664 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Sims v. Sims, 846 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Roth v. Roth, 658 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
In this case, it appears any defect, if there is one, is purely a scrivener's error. The trial court clearly referenced the provisions of the temporary order and intended to incorporate them into the final judgment. Upon remand, the trial court may expressly incorporate them by reference, or repeat them in the final judgment.
Ronald also argues that the provisions of the temporary order are incomplete because they do not address visitation during holidays and other special occasions and extended school breaks such as the summer. It is inappropriate to leave such issues unresolved for future adjudication. Del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So.2d 315, 318-319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). See also Hansen v. Hansen, 911 So.2d 159, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
The granting of such a limited visitation to Ronald is problematic. However, trial courts have discretion to order visitation based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Keesee v. Keesee, 675 So.2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In this case, the evidence presented below and as expressly found by the trial court, justifies such a limitation. See Williams v. Williams, 923 So.2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Vaughn v. Vaughn, 714 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). For example, in the final judgment the court expressed its concern about Ronald's influence on the children:
The Father has throughout these proceedings attempted to parentally alienate the minor children and the Court has grave concerns about the children having primary residence ever with the Father. The Father has consistently made degrading and obscene comments about the Mother. The Mother had a previous child out of wedlock prior to this marriage and the Father has made sure the minor children of this marriage know the circumstances of their half-sister's... out of wedlock birth and routinely refers to the Mother in derogatory terms. The Father has told the minor son ... that he does not have to listen to his mother and made derogatory statements about ... half sister.
In other paragraphs of the Final Judgment, the trial court noted additional degrading comments Ronald has made about Theresa in front of the children which do not need to be repeated. It noted, "[t]he Court has serious concerns about the moral fitness of the Father in consideration of his actions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Karkhoff v. Robilotta
...course of action if she could not or would not refinance the home. See Jones , 184 So. 3d at 1239 ; see also Schumaker v. Schumaker , 931 So. 2d 271, 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (trial court erred in failing to include the consequences should the former husband fail to refinance or sell the mar......
-
Coristine v. Coristine
...remarries, unless there are special circumstances. See Martin v. Martin, 959 So.2d 803, 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So.2d 271, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Dehler v. Dehler, 648 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). “Special circumstances” exist where the parties' incomes......
-
Mills v. Johnson
...justifying that decision.’ ” (quoting Todd v. Guillaume–Todd, 972 So.2d 1003, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) )); Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So.2d 271, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court erred in failing to address holiday visitation). In light of the fact that the magistrate d......
-
Todd v. Guillaume-Todd
...has become so routine and necessary that to deny it requires factual findings justifying that decision. See Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So.2d 271, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (stating that is error for trial court to leave judgment incomplete by failing to address visitation on "holidays and ot......
-
Emergencies and case management conference
...relationship and how they “won’t agree” did not rise to the level of a finding of detriment to the child. • Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Where trial court clearly referenced the provisions of the temporary order of visitation and intended to incorporate them i......
-
Domestic violence
...an asserted defense, with regard to a material matter as defined in section 837.011(3), Florida Statutes. CASES • Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Where trial court clearly referenced the provisions of the temporary order of visitation and intended to incorporate ......
-
Parental responsibility
...activity, even when the other parent did not agree to the child’s participation in such activity. • Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Failure to address visitation and holidays and extended school breaks, evidence presented justified such limitation based on husban......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...any holiday timesharing with minor child in the absence of findings justifying the lack of such an award); Schumaker v. Schumaker , 931 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)(error for trial court to leave judgment incomplete by failing to address visitation on holidays and other special occasions ......