A final judgment in a divorce is supposed to create clarity and finality. It is the comprehensive, binding order that resolves all outstanding issues, from the parenting plan and child support to the final division of every asset. But what happens when that “final” judgment is confusing, contradictory, or based on no evidence at all?
A 2025 decision from Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal, Murnane v. Murnane, serves as a powerful case study in the common, costly errors that can plague a final judgment. In this single case, the appellate court identified and reversed four separate, significant errors made by the trial court. These mistakes were not minor typos; they were fundamental flaws that rendered parts of the judgment unenforceable, incorrect, and unfair.
The court found:
- An ambiguous summer timesharing schedule that the court itself said “begs for chaos.”
- Direct contradictions in the child support calculations, where the judgment’s text said one thing and its mathematical worksheet said another.
- A nonsensical award of “spousal support arrears” to the husband, even though the same judgment had denied his claim for alimony.
- A valuation of retirement accounts that was not supported by any competent, substantial evidence.
This case is a checklist of the pitfalls that can arise in a complex divorce proceeding. For anyone in Tampa navigating the dissolution process, it highlights the absolute necessity of meticulous preparation, precise drafting, and the guidance of an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer to avoid these costly mistakes.
1. The “Chaos” of an Ambiguous Parenting Plan
A parenting plan is the rulebook for co-parenting. Its primary purpose is to be so clear and specific that it prevents future conflict. When a parenting plan is vague, it does the opposite: it guarantees future conflict by leaving critical issues open to interpretation.
In the Murnane case, the trial court was faced with setting the summer vacation schedule for the parties, who otherwise followed a “week on/week off” timesharing routine. The court’s final judgment ordered the following:
- The parents “shall follow the ordinary time-share schedule” during the summer.
- However, each parent “may enjoy time-share for up to two (2) consecutive weeks for vacation purposes.”
- To make matters worse, it then stated, “These weeks may be enjoyed consecutively or separately.”
The Former Wife appealed this, arguing that the language “adds confusion, and begs for chaos.” The appellate court agreed.
This order is a textbook example of ambiguity. It creates a host of unanswerable questions that are guaranteed to send the parents right back to court.
- Consecutive or Separate? The order first says “two consecutive weeks” but then says they can be taken “separately.” This is a direct contradiction.
- What is a “Separate” Week? If the weeks can be separate, does that mean one 7-day block in June and one 7-day block in July? Or could a parent claim two separate individual weeks, potentially creating a five-week stretch of time by combining their regular week, a “separate” vacation week, their next regular week, and their second “separate” vacation week?
- Does Vacation Supersede? The plan states the “ordinary time-share” schedule applies, but also allows for vacation. It fails to state the most critical rule of all: that vacation time supersedes the regular schedule. Without this language, one parent could argue the other cannot take a vacation if it falls on their “ordinary” week.
The appellate court reversed this portion of the plan and remanded it, instructing the trial judge to clarify the schedule. This is a common-sense ruling that highlights a critical aspect of family law practice. A well-drafted parenting plan from a qualified Tampa divorce lawyer will never contain such ambiguities.
A proper vacation clause in a Tampa parenting plan will specify, with precision:
- That vacation time supersedes the regular schedule.
- The exact number of weeks or days each parent is allotted.
- Whether those days must be consecutive or can be broken up.
- A firm deadline for parents to notify each other of their intended vacation dates (e.g., “by May 1st of each year”).
- A “tie-breaker” clause in case both parents request the same dates (e.g., “the Mother shall have priority in odd-numbered years, and the Father in even-numbered years”).
This level of detail is not “nitpicking.” It is the only way to create a stable, predictable schedule that children need and to prevent parents from spending thousands of dollars in future legal fees to “clarify” a poorly written order.
2. Child Support: When the Judgment Contradicts Itself
Calculating child support is a mathematical process. Florida’s statutes require the use of a Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, a form that calculates the final amount based on several key financial inputs. If those inputs are wrong, the final calculation will be wrong. The Murnane case presents two glaring errors, one a contradiction and the other a simple data-entry mistake.
The Child Tax Credit Contradiction The trial court’s final judgment was internally inconsistent.
- In the parenting plan section of the judgment, the court ordered: “The parents shall each claim one child as their tax… exemption.”
- In the child support guidelines worksheet—which was attached to and made part of the same final judgment—the calculation reflected the Former Wife claiming the tax credit for both children.
This is a critical error. The allocation of the child tax credit is a significant financial factor that is plugged directly into the worksheet. It changes the net income calculation and, therefore, the final support obligation. The court’s order literally said two different things at the same time.
The Health Insurance Miscalculation The second error was a simple, but costly, mistake. The trial court’s judgment found as a matter of fact that the Former Wife was paying $254 for the children’s health insurance. This amount is a direct credit in the support calculation; the parent who pays for insurance gets that cost factored into the formula.
However, the final child support worksheet did not “accurately reflect” this $254 amount. The math was simply wrong.
The Former Husband, to his credit, conceded both of these errors on appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, ordering the trial court to recalculate child support using the correct inputs.
This portion of the Murnane case is a lesson in “garbage in, garbage out.” A child support calculation is only as good as the data used to create it. A skilled Tampa divorce lawyer acts as a forensic auditor, meticulously checking every single number on the worksheet—incomes, tax status, overnight percentages, health insurance, and child care costs—to ensure it matches the evidence presented at trial. A simple mistake, as seen here, can result in an incorrect support order, costing one party thousands of dollars over the life of the child support obligation.
3. The “Phantom Award”: Assessing Alimony Arrears After Denying Alimony
This next error is one of logic. It is a mistake so fundamental that it was likely a “scrivener’s error,” or a copy-and-paste mistake from another case file, that went unnoticed by the trial court.
The trial court, in its final judgment, explicitly denied the Former Husband’s claim for alimony. This means the judge found that the Former Husband was not entitled to receive any spousal support.
And yet, in a later section of the same judgment, the court found that the “Wife owes to the Husband the sum of $8,719.00 in child support and spousal support arrears.”
This is a legal and logical impossibility. “Arrears” are payments that are overdue. A person cannot be overdue on alimony payments that were never awarded in the first place. If the claim for alimony was denied, the amount of spousal support arrears must, by definition, be zero.
The Former Husband conceded this error on appeal as well. The appellate court reversed this finding and remanded the case, instructing the trial judge to calculate the amount of child support arrears only.
This “phantom award” is a terrifying example of what can happen when a final judgment is not reviewed with a fine-toothed comb. Had the Former Wife not appealed, this erroneous $8,719 (or some portion of it) could have become an enforceable judgment against her. She could have faced a wage garnishment or a bank levy for a debt that never legally existed.
This highlights the critical importance of a post-judgment review by a qualified Tampa divorce lawyer. A lawyer will not just look at the “big picture” rulings but will analyze every sentence to ensure the judgment is internally consistent, logical, and free of these kinds of costly “typos.”
4. The Core of Equitable Distribution: You Must Have Evidence of Value
The final error identified in Murnane is perhaps the most significant, as it goes to the very heart of the asset division process: equitable distribution.
In any Tampa divorce, the court must identify, value, and distribute all marital assets and debts. The “valuation” step is not a guess. It must be based on “competent, substantial evidence.”
In this case, the Former Husband had two retirement accounts that were his non-marital property, but a portion of their growth during the marriage was marital and subject to division. The trial court had to determine their value. The court did so, placing specific dollar amounts on the Fidelity #9361 and TD Roth IRA #3747 accounts.
The Former Wife appealed, arguing these valuations were not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The appellate court reviewed the entire trial record and agreed with her.
The only place in the entire record where the court’s valuation numbers appeared was on the Former Husband’s own proposed equitable distribution worksheet.
This is a fatal error in trial practice. A party’s financial affidavit or a lawyer’s proposed worksheet is a pleading—it is an argument or a suggestion to the court. It is not evidence.
- Evidence is a bank statement, a retirement account statement, or a property appraisal.
- Evidence is the sworn testimony of a forensic accountant who has analyzed the accounts.
- A worksheet drafted by a lawyer is just a summary of what that lawyer wants the judge to find.
The appellate court found that the record was “devoid of the source of the account valuations.” Because the judge’s valuation was not based on any actual evidence, the entire equitable distribution scheme had to be reversed. The case was sent back for a new hearing where the parties must actually submit the evidence (like account statements) to prove the value of the assets.
This error is a rookie mistake, but it happens. A party will come to court and simply tell the judge, “My 401(k) is worth $100,000,” but will fail to submit the account statement into the evidentiary record. Without that statement, the judge has no “competent, substantial evidence” to support that finding.
This mistake is incredibly costly. It means the parties in Murnane must now pay their lawyers again to prepare for and attend another hearing to re-litigate an issue that should have been settled at the original trial. A Tampa divorce lawyerunderstands this critical distinction and will be prepared to enter every appraisal, every KBB printout, and every bank and retirement statement into the official record to ensure the final judgment is built on a solid, unassailable evidentiary foundation.
Conclusion: Why the “Details” Are the Whole Case
The Murnane v. Murnane decision is a comprehensive checklist of what can go wrong in a divorce. The final judgment, which was supposed to end the parties’ conflict, was instead a bundle of new conflicts, riddled with ambiguity, mathematical contradictions, logical impossibilities, and factual findings with no basis in the evidence.
These are not “minor” details. They represent thousands of dollars in miscalculated support, incorrectly divided assets, and the stability of a child’s summer schedule. The fact that an appellate court had to reverse a single judgment on four separate grounds shows how complex this process is and how easily it can go off the rails.
This is why professional legal representation is not a luxury. Navigating the complexities of Florida family law, from drafting a parenting plan that prevents “chaos” to presenting the proper evidence for equitable distribution, requires a skilled advocate. If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce, contact our office to ensure your rights are protected and your case is handled with the meticulous attention to detail it deserves.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is a “reversible error” in a divorce? A reversible error is a legal or factual mistake made by the trial judge that is significant enough to have affected the outcome. An appellate court will reverse the decision and send it back to the trial judge to fix the mistake.
Why is an ambiguous parenting plan a problem? An ambiguous parenting plan (e.g., one with a confusing vacation schedule) “begs for chaos” because it creates confusion. This leads to constant conflict between the parents and instability for the children, often requiring future court action to fix.
What is “competent, substantial evidence” for asset valuation? It is real, reliable proof of an asset’s value. This includes official documents like bank or retirement account statements, property appraisals, or the testimony of an expert witness, not just a party’s own financial affidavit or a lawyer’s worksheet.
What happens if my final judgment has a math error in the child support? You must file a motion for rehearing or an appeal to correct it. As the Murnane case shows, even obvious math errors or contradictions within the judgment can be reversed and corrected if properly challenged.
Can a judge deny alimony but still order me to pay alimony “arrears”? No. This is a logical and legal impossibility. Arrears are overdue payments. If alimony was never awarded, there can be no overdue payments. This type of mistake in a judgment must be challenged and corrected.