Stokes v. Stokes , 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1500 ( 2017 )

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ZACKERY L. STOKES, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D16-225
)
SAKEENAH A. STOKES, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed February 8, 2017.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian,
Judge.
David L. Hurvitz of Law Office of David
Hurvitz, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Sakeenah A. Stokes, pro se.
VILLANTI, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal of an order entered in two parts, two weeks apart. In the
first part, an order modifying final judgment, the trial court engaged in the required
statutory analysis and made detailed findings of fact concerning the issues raised in
competing petitions for modification of a parenting plan. This order would ordinarily be
affirmed as it is supported by competent substantial evidence. However, the second
order, an order modifying parenting plan and timesharing schedule, purports to award
the Former Wife relief which is at odds with the first order. Inasmuch as the trial court
prepared both parts of the order and denied rehearing without placing its rationale on
the record, we are unable to resolve these inconsistencies from the face of the record.
Hence, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings for the trial court to enter
an order that is consistent throughout. See Sedky v. Ibrahim, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2665
(Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 30, 2016) (remanding for clarification of the final judgment and
parenting plan due to inconsistent statements); see also Justice v. Justice, 80 So. 3d
405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remanding for entry of a consistent order regarding
timesharing).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
-2-