DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
RUTH KING n/k/a RUTH MUNIZ,
Appellant,
v.
MASHAWN KING,
Appellee.
No. 4D22-1493
[June 21, 2023]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Renatha S. Francis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-DR-
005170-XXXX-MB.
Troy W. Klein of the Law Office of Troy W. Klein, P.A., West Palm Beach,
for appellant.
Meaghan K. Marro of Marro Law, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from dissolution of marriage proceedings between
the appellant (“the mother”) and the appellee (“the father”). After the trial
court entered a final judgment, reserving jurisdiction to determine child
support and significant related issues, the mother moved for
determination of child support, retroactive support, and for entry of a
superseding child support order. An evidentiary hearing was held, and
the trial court requested the parties to submit proposed orders. The trial
court ultimately adopted the father’s proposed order verbatim. The mother
argues this was error. Based on the record, we find it is not apparent the
trial court exercised independent decision-making, and we reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
Unfortunately, there is no transcript of the evidentiary hearing.
However, the parties do not dispute that the trial court chose not to
announce its ruling and that it requested the parties to submit proposed
orders to dispose of numerous issues. The record contains the parties’
proposed orders on the mother’s pending motion. Aside from removing
blank spaces and entering a date, the court’s order matches the father’s
proposed order, including grammatical and spelling errors and conflicting
and partially repetitive paragraphs.
A trial court’s adoption of a proposed order verbatim constitutes
reversible error where it appears the court did not exercise independent
decision-making. See Ross v. Botha,
867 So. 2d 567, 572-73 (Fla. 4th DCA
2004), abrogated on other grounds by C.N. v. I.G.C.,
316 So. 3d 287, 289
(Fla. 2021). Although it is not uncommon for trial judges to request parties
in family law cases to submit proposed orders, “the practice of a trial judge
adopting verbatim a proposed final judgment without making any
modifications, additions or deletions, and without making any comments
on the record prior to entry of the final judgment is frowned upon.” Perlow
v. Berg-Perlow,
875 So. 2d 383, 389 (Fla. 2004).
In Perlow, the supreme court provided the following guidance with
respect to adoption of proposed judgments in marital dissolution
proceedings:
(1) [T]he trial judge may ask both parties or one party to
submit a proposed final judgment; (2) if proposed final
judgments are filed, each party should be given an
opportunity to review the other party’s proposed final
judgment and make objections; (3) if only one party submits
a proposed final judgment, there must be an opportunity for
review and objections by the opposing party; and (4) prior to
requesting proposed final judgments, the trial court should,
when possible, indicate on the record the court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law.
Id. at 384.
Importantly, a judgment need not be reversed solely because a trial
court adopts a proposed order verbatim. In re T.D. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam.
Servs.,
924 So. 2d 827, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Rather, the following
factors are relevant and are to be considered in reviewing such an order:
1) Is the signed order consistent with or divergent from the
verbal rulings of the court?
2) How much time has passed since the hearing, and does the
judge remember the case?
3) Are there irregularities or conflicts in the terms of the order?
2
4) Did the judge participate in the trial?
5) Did the judge edit or alter the proposed judgment to
conform it to his or her conclusions about the case, or did
he or she sign it verbatim?
Ross,
867 So. 2d at 572. “[W]e will reverse any judgment entered under
circumstances that create an appearance that the judgment does not
reflect the judge’s independent decision-making,” but “the fact that the
judgment was adopted from a proposal submitted by a party does not,
standing alone, raise that possibility.” T.D., 924 So. 2d at 831.
Here, there is no transcript of the proceedings, so it is not possible for
us to gauge the level of the trial court’s participation during the hearing.
However, the parties agree that the trial court did not announce its ruling
or make any observations at the conclusion of the hearing or any other
findings and that it requested the parties to submit proposed orders.
The order entered by the trial court matched the father’s submission,
including two paragraphs that conflict. The order was signed by the trial
court only one business day after the father submitted his proposed order
to the trial court. It is not apparent from the record that the mother had
the opportunity to raise objections to the father’s proposed order before
the trial court entered the order.
As it stands, the circumstances create the appearance that the trial
court did not independently consider the merits of the parties’ arguments,
thus warranting reversal. See Ross,
867 So. 2d at 572 (reversing where
“[t]he court ended the hearing with no findings and no rulings, and then
adopted an irregular, defective, one-sided submission verbatim, without
comment from the opposing side”).
The father appears to argue this court cannot reverse without a
transcript of the hearing. However, this court and the Fifth District Court
of Appeal have reversed an adopted order in the absence of a transcript
where it appeared the trial court did not independently consider the merits
of the case. See Chetram v. Singh,
984 So. 2d 614, 615-17 (Fla. 5th DCA
2008); Ross,
867 So. 2d at 570.
The father also seems to make a harmless error argument by asserting
that the mother’s requests were meritless or not supported by evidence.
Without a hearing transcript, we are unable to address that issue. The
father also asserts the parties stipulated to all issues other than the
mother’s request for an upward deviation in child support. Our review of
3
the proposed orders, however, indicates the parties did not agree on many
issues that were to be considered by the trial court.
We hold that the circumstances surrounding entry of what ultimately
became the trial court’s final order, and the order itself, create doubt as to
whether the trial court exercised independent judgment. Additionally, it
is not apparent the mother had an opportunity to comment on the
proposed order. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
4
