Summary
reversing "[b]ecause the amended final judgment is internally inconsistent on the award of timesharing"
Summary of this case from A.A. v. D.W.Opinion
No. 1D20-2722
04-01-2021
Briana COUTURE, Appellant, v. Austin COUTURE, Appellee.
Emily R. Calvin of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Lake City; Natalie N. Maxwell of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, for Appellant. Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak, for Appellee.
Emily R. Calvin of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Lake City; Natalie N. Maxwell of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, for Appellant.
Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Briana Couture challenges an amended supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding Austin Couture majority timesharing with the parties’ minor child. We reverse.
In the amended supplemental final judgment, the trial court found that it was in the best interest of the child for Austin Couture to have majority timesharing based on the timesharing factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes. The court ordered the parties to abide by a parenting plan, which was attached as an exhibit to the final order. But the parenting plan provides that Briana Couture will have all timesharing not otherwise specified and that Austin Couture will have timesharing every other weekend from Friday to Sunday. In addition, the court's findings on the timesharing factors support a conclusion that the best interest evaluation favored Briana Couture's case for majority timesharing. Because the amended final judgment is internally inconsistent on the award of timesharing, we reverse. See Justice v. Justice , 80 So. 3d 405, 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that the trial court erred in ordering a timesharing schedule in the final judgment that conflicted with the timesharing schedule attached as an exhibit to the final judgment). In view of our decision to reverse the order regarding timesharing, we decline to reach Briana Couture's other arguments specifically addressing the trial court's findings on two of the § 61.13(3) factors.
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of a revised order regarding timesharing.
Rowe, Makar, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.