From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruschiwal v. Ruschiwal

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Dec 28, 2007
971 So. 2d 190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Summary

noting that the circuit court erred when its written ruling did not conform to its oral pronouncement

Summary of this case from Langford v. Masco

Opinion

No. 2D07-439.

December 28, 2007.

Appeal from the the Circuit Court, Hardee County, Robert L. Doyel, J.

Kathy B. Gregg, Wauchula, for Appellant.

Mark A. Sessums of Frost, Tamayo, Sessums Aranda, P.A., Bartow, for Appellee.


Joseph Ruschiwal (former husband) appeals the trial court's award of permanent alimony and an award of retroactive alimony to Kathleen Ruschiwal (former wife). We affirm the trial court's alimony awards but remand for modification of its final judgment based on the parties' stipulations here.

In its final judgment, the trial court stated that the former husband "is entitled to a credit for one-half of each mortgage payment that he has made during the time from the separation until the date of this order." However, at the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, the trial court stated on the record that the former husband "should be entitled to a credit for one-half of each mortgage payment that he has made during the time from the time of their separation until the date of the sale." The former wife has stipulated that the trial court's oral pronouncement is correct and that the final judgment is not correct. On review of the record, we agree that the trial court erred by not conforming its final judgment to the oral pronouncement. See Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So.2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

The former husband, citing Millen v. Millen, 658 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), argued that having placed the parties in the same relative financial position, it was error to require him to pay one-third of the former wife's attorney's fees. The former wife has stipulated that it was error for the trial court to have awarded her attorney's fees. We agree.

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to modify its final judgment in conformity with this decision and affirm in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CANADY and LaROSE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ruschiwal v. Ruschiwal

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Dec 28, 2007
971 So. 2d 190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

noting that the circuit court erred when its written ruling did not conform to its oral pronouncement

Summary of this case from Langford v. Masco
Case details for

Ruschiwal v. Ruschiwal

Case Details

Full title:Joseph Rudolph RUSCHIWAL, Appellant, v. Kathleen Patricia RUSCHIWAL…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Dec 28, 2007

Citations

971 So. 2d 190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Citing Cases

Langford v. Masco

This directive did not conform to the judge's oral ruling, and therefore it must be corrected. See Ruschiwal…