Ulano v. Anderson

8 Citing cases

  1. Perry v. Office of Personnel Management

    243 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting the provisions are "virtually identical"

    The Florida hearing transcript does not reveal any inconsistency with the decree; to whatever extent there may be inconsistency, however, Perry's recourse lies with the Florida court. See Goosby v. Lawrence, 711 So.2d 577, 578 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998) (remanding an appeal from a final divorce judgment because "[i]t is well-settled law that the trial court's oral pronouncement must confirm to the written judgment"); see also Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993). As in the case of the dispute over the portion of his retirement annuity that the decree awarded to his former wife, if Perry believed that the decree does not provide a survivor's annuity for his former wife, he should have requested clarification or interpretation of the decree by the Florida court.

  2. Cancino v. Cancino

    273 So. 3d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    This is so because of the well-established principle that a trial court's oral pronouncement controls over its written order. Cajuste v. Herlitschek, 204 So.3d 80, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; Hampton Manor, Inc. v. Fortner, 141 So.3d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ; Glick, 874 So.2d at 1241 ; see also Shacker v. State, 106 So.3d 36, 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (reversing order revoking probation to the extent the order did not "correctly reflect the oral pronouncement" regarding commission of violations of probation); Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112, 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("Reversal is required where a final judgment is inconsistent with a trial court's oral pronouncements."). Although not relevant here because the trial court withheld adjudication, we note that a judgment of indirect criminal contempt need not contain written findings of fact where oral findings are made on the record.

  3. Verleni v. Dept. of Health

    853 So. 2d 481 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times
    Reversing final order that adopted findings set out in exceptions to the recommended order contrary to the ALJ's findings that were supported by competent substantial evidence

    Oral pronouncements of an agency at a duly noticed hearing control over a written order which is inconsistent with those pronouncements. Cf., e.g., Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("Reversal is required where a final judgment is inconsistent with a trial court's oral pronouncements."). Beyond the normal rule requiring that a written order reflect the tribunal's earlier pronouncements, three specific considerations lead to reversal here. First, all meetings of the Board are public meetings subject to notice requirements.

  4. Williamson v. Williamson

    714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

    See Firestone v. Firestone, 704 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Second, it was error for the written final judgment to grant Mrs. Williamson, the custodial parent, "weekend visitation" during the summer weeks in which the couple's child was to reside with Mr. Williamson. This "weekend visitation" provision was contrary to the court's oral pronouncement. See Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). The final judgment's visitation schedule defined weekend visitation as "Friday 6 p.m. until Sunday 6 p.m."

  5. Goosby v. Lawrence

    711 So. 2d 577 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that "the trial court's oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment"

    It is well-settled law that the trial court's oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment. See Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In this case, the final judgment is not in conformity with the oral pronouncements regarding alimony and child support.

  6. Ulano v. Anderson

    703 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    After the conclusion of the trial, the parties submitted written final arguments on February 28, 1992. Approximately five months later, on July 17, 1992, the lower court orally announced to the parties in chambers that it was finding for Dr. Ulano on the issue of liability and directed the parties to submit written argument as to the amount of damages within ten days. Prior to the parties' written submission, however, the court sua sponte entered a written final judgment in favor of Dr. Anderson. That final judgment was appealed and reversed by this court in Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), based upon the fact that it was inconsistent with the lower court's earlier oral pronouncements. The lower court finally entered a final judgment pursuant to the mandate in Ulano on August 8, 1996, wherein the court found in favor of Dr. Ulano, but awarded him only $11,464.

  7. Fernandez v. Sun Bank of Tampa Bay

    670 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncements. Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing, inter alia, Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). We therefore reverse the injunction as to the appellant and remand for further proceedings.

  8. DE ARMAS v. DE ARMAS

    639 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

    At issue in this case is the failure of the written judgment to conform to the court's oral pronouncement. It is well-settled law that the trial court's oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment. Ulano v. Anderson, 626 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and cited cases. In this case, it does not.