Kim Suk v. Sook H. Chang

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
KIM SUK, )
)
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D14-5709
)
SOOK H. CHANG, )
)
Appellee/Cross-Appellant. )
)
Opinion filed March 11, 2016.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Ashley B. Moody,
Judge.
Mark S. Howard of Mark S. Howard, P.A.,
Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Joryn Jenkins of Open Palm Law, Tampa,
for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
VILLANTI, Chief Judge.
Kim Suk (the Husband) appeals the final judgment of dissolution of his
marriage to Sook H. Chang (the Wife), raising two issues. We affirm without comment
the trial court's decision not to impose a constructive trust on the Korean condominium.
However, as the Wife properly concedes, we must reverse the portion of the final
judgment that unequally allocated the proceeds of the sale of the real property located
at 7715 Citronella Avenue 1 and remand for the trial court to enter an amended final
judgment of dissolution, as explained below, that is internally consistent as to the
disposition of this asset.
The record shows that the parties owned several pieces of real property
that produced rental income for them during the course of the marriage, one of which
was the 7715 Citronella property. In an interlocutory ruling, the trial court adopted the
stipulated value of the 7715 Citronella property of $55,017, ordered that the property be
listed for sale at a price of no less than that amount, and ordered that the proceeds of
the sale be split evenly between the parties.
It is not clear from the record what steps the parties took to comply with
this interlocutory ruling; however, it is clear that the 7715 Citronella property had not
been sold by the time of the final hearing. In the final judgment, the trial court ordered
that the parties abide by this earlier interlocutory ruling as to the disposition of this
property. However, when the trial court listed this property in the equitable distribution
schedule, it allocated $27,508.50 to the Wife but $36,000 to the Husband. It appears
that this error arose because the parties stipulated at trial that the value of the 7715
Citronella property was actually $72,000—half of which would be $36,000—rather than
the $55,017 that was the agreed value when the interlocutory order was entered.
However, regardless of how or why the error arose, it resulted in an irreconcilable, albeit
unintentional, internal inconsistency within the final judgment, as well as a written
1Allof the parties' properties were in Tampa, including several on
Citronella Avenue. Therefore, we are referencing the actual address for clarity for the
trial court on remand.
-2-
judgment that deviated from the court's oral ruling and an overcalculation of the
equalization payment due from the Husband to the Wife.
Generally, "[r]eversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent
with the trial court's oral pronouncement." Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2009); see also Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA
1993); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (reversing the
portion of the final judgment concerning visitation and remanding with directions to
confirm the written judgment to the court's oral pronouncement); cf. Meyer v. Meyer,
525 So. 2d 462, 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (noting that the entry of a written judgment
that is materially different from the court's oral pronouncement is a substantive error
requiring correction). Further, dissolution judgments that contain internal
inconsistencies must be reversed so the inconsistencies can be corrected. See, e.g.,
Allen v. Allen, 114 So. 3d 1102, 1103-04 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing internally
inconsistent final judgment of dissolution and remanding for the trial court to correct
inconsistent provisions relating to child support and the allocation of child-related
expenses); Gibson v. Gibson, 98 So. 3d 764, 764-65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing
final judgment that contained inconsistent directives concerning the disposition of the
proceeds of the marital home). The remedy is for this court to remand so that the
inconsistency can be corrected.
Here, the Wife has conceded error on this issue in this appeal. Therefore,
we reverse the portion of the equitable distribution worksheet that addresses the
allocation of the proceeds of the sale of the 7715 Citronella property and remand for the
trial court to enter an amended final judgment that divides the value of this property
-3-
evenly between the parties. Making this correction will require the trial court to also
recalculate the equalizing payment due from the Husband to the Wife. On remand, the
trial court may, if necessary, consider any new evidence concerning the status of the
sale of this property. In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
-4-