A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Kiswani v. Hafza, provides a stunning and powerful lesson in the technical, non-negotiable requirements of a final judgment of divorce. In this case, a Former Wife appealed the trial court’s final judgment, and she did so without providing a trial transcript. In almost every appeal, this is a fatal, case-ending mistake. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court on four of the five issues presented, finding that the written judgment itself was so legally deficient that it constituted “fundamental error on its face.”
The Fifth District Court of Appeal found that the trial court’s final judgment was invalid, reversing it for:
- Entering an invalid parenting plan that failed to include a timesharing schedule, improperly delegated the judge’s authority to a therapist, and set forth impermissible “steps” for the mother to regain timesharing.
- Failing to make the mandatory statutory findings for the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities.
- Failing to make the required factual findings to support its decision to impute income to both parties for child support calculations.
- Ordering the Former Wife to pay the Former Husband’s attorney’s fees without making the required findings regarding her “ability to pay” or his “need.”
This case is a critical reminder that a judge’s power is not absolute. They must follow the strict procedural and statutory requirements of Florida law. For any individual in Tampa facing a divorce, this decision highlights the profound importance of an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer who can ensure your final judgment is not just “final,” but legally sound, enforceable, and capable of surviving an appeal.
The Most Critical Mistake: Appealing Without a Transcript
To understand the significance of the Kiswani case, one must first understand the single most important rule of appellate law. When a party appeals a trial judge’s decision, the legal system starts with a powerful “presumption of correctness.” The appellate court is required to assume the trial judge’s decision was correct, and the entire burden is on the appellant (the person filing the appeal) to prove the judge committed a reversible error.
The primary way an appellant proves this is by providing the appellate court with the trial transcript—the official, word-for-word record of everything that was said and done at the trial. Without a transcript, the appellate court has no way to review the evidence, weigh the testimony, or analyze the judge’s factual findings.
When no transcript is provided, as in the Kiswani case, the appellate court must assume that the trial judge heard sufficient evidence to support their ruling. This is known as the Applegate rule, and it is the rock upon which most appeals without a transcript are broken.
The Former Wife’s appeal should have been over before it began. However, she was saved by a narrow, but powerful, exception: “fundamental error apparent on the face of the judgment.”
A “facial error” is a legal mistake so severe and obvious that it can be seen just by reading the final judgment itself. It means the judgment is internally contradictory, illogical, or, as in this case, completely fails to include mandatory legal requirements. The Former Wife won because the final judgment, on its own, was so legally deficient that it was “fundamentally erroneous” without needing to review a single page of testimony. This is a rare victory, and it underscores the critical importance of a properly drafted final order. A skilled Tampa divorce lawyer is not just focused on winning at trial, but on ensuring the written judgment is legally “bulletproof.”
Error 1: A Parenting Plan That Violates Florida Law
The first and most glaring series of errors was found in the parenting plan. The appellate court identified three distinct ways the trial court’s plan violated the mandatory requirements of Florida law.
1. A Parenting Plan Must Have a Specific Timesharing Schedule
The law requires that every parenting plan must include a “time-sharing schedule” that specifies, with particularity, the time the minor child will spend with each parent. This is the “who, what, when, and where” of co-parenting.
The Kiswani parenting plan failed this basic test. The written plan did not describe which parent would have the child or establish any specific schedule for weekdays, weekends, holidays, or summer vacation.
This is a fundamental error. A parenting plan that is vague or “silent” on the actual schedule is legally invalid and unenforceable. It is a “parenting plan” in name only. For parents in Tampa, specificity is the key to preventing future conflict. A valid parenting plan, which any experienced Tampa divorce lawyer will insist upon, must be a detailed calendar that both parents can follow without needing to go back to court. A plan that simply says “reasonable timesharing as the parties may agree” is not a plan at all.
2. A Judge Cannot Delegate Their Authority to a Therapist
The second error in the plan was an “impermissible delegation of judicial authority.” This is a common but serious legal mistake where a judge attempts to give their “gavel” to a third-party expert.
In Kiswani, the trial judge made the Former Wife’s future timesharing contingent on her first meeting the “recommendations of various medical professionals.” Worse, the judge gave the child’s therapist the power “to determine if, when and the parameters of telephonic and/or video contact” between the Mother and child.
The appellate court reversed this, citing a long history of cases that forbid this practice. A judge in a Tampa divorce court has the sole and non-delegable authority to determine parenting and timesharing.
- What a Judge Can Do: A judge can order a parent to attend therapy. A judge can order a therapist to provide a report or recommendation to the court. The judge can then use that report as evidence in a new hearing to make a new decision.
- What a Judge Cannot Do: A judge cannot give the therapist the final decision-making power. A final judgment that says, “The Mother can see her child when the therapist says she is ready” is an illegal delegation of judicial power.
Therapists and other experts are crucial in high-conflict cases, but their role is to inform the court, not decide for the court. A Tampa divorce lawyer must be vigilant in objecting to any proposed order that gives a third-party expert the power to make the final determination on a client’s fundamental parenting rights.
3. A Judge Cannot Create “Extra-Statutory” Rules for Modification
The final error in the parenting plan was the trial court’s attempt to create its own, “custom” pathway for the Former Wife to regain her timesharing. The judge set forth a list of “specific steps” she had to complete.
The appellate court reversed this, finding that these “extra-statutory contingencies” are impermissible. The Florida Legislature has created the one and only legal standard for modifying a parenting plan. A parent seeking to change timesharing must file a Supplemental Petition for Modification and prove two things:
- There has been a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances since the last order was entered.
- The proposed modification is in the best interests of the child.
A trial judge cannot “circumvent” this law by creating their own set of “hoops” for a parent to jump through. The judge’s “steps” in the Kiswani judgment were a legal nullity. The Former Wife is not required to complete the judge’s list; to regain her timesharing, she simply has to file a standard Supplemental Petition and meet the one, true statutory test. This is a critical protection that ensures the modification process is fair, uniform, and based on the established law, not the arbitrary requirements of a single judge.
Error 2: The Failure to “Show Your Work” in Equitable Distribution
The next major reversal involved the trial court’s equitable distribution plan. In Florida, “equitable distribution” is the mandatory four-step process a court must follow to divide the marital assets and liabilities.
The Kiswani judgment included an “equitable distribution chart,” but the appellate court found that it failed to provide the “appropriate findings” required by law. Specifically, the judgment failed to “identify and distribute” the assets and “does not contain the requisite statutory findings.”
This is another “facial error” that any Tampa divorce lawyer is trained to spot. A judge cannot simply hand out assets. They must “show their work” by making specific, written findings of fact in the final judgment that follow these four steps:
- Identify all assets and liabilities.
- Classify each one as either “marital” (subject to division) or “nonmarital” (separate property).
- Value every marital asset and liability.
- Distribute the marital estate between the parties, beginning with the legal presumption of a 50/50 split.
The Kiswani judgment failed at the most basic levels. It did not properly classify the assets or provide any factual basis for the valuations or distribution. An appellate court cannot review a property division if the trial judge fails to provide these mandatory findings. This failure requires an automatic reversal, forcing the parties to go back to the trial court to have the findings properly made.
Error 3: Imputing Income Without Any Factual Findings
The third reversal involved the child support calculation. The trial court’s Child Support Guidelines Worksheet showed that it had “imputed” income to both parties. It imputed $3,233.00 per month to the Former Husband and imputed minimum wage to the Former Wife.
“Imputing income” is a powerful tool. It is when a court finds a party is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and assigns them an income based on what they could and should be earning.
However, a judge cannot just “pick a number.” To impute income, a judge must make specific, written factual findings. The judge must first find that the unemployment is voluntary. Then, the judge must determine the amount by considering the party’s:
- Recent work history;
- Occupational qualifications; and
- The prevailing earnings level and availability of jobs in the Tampa community.
The Kiswani trial court failed to make any of these findings. It simply imputed the income without any explanation or evidentiary basis. This is a classic, reversible error. The court’s finding that the Wife should be imputed minimum wage, without any analysis of her work history, education, or skills, was a fundamental “facial error.” A Tampa divorce lawyerrepresenting a spouse who is unemployed must be prepared to present evidence on these factors to either support or defeat an imputation claim.
Error 4: Ordering Attorney’s Fees Without Analyzing “Need and Ability”
The final reversal was on the trial court’s order for the Former Wife to pay “all or a portion” of the Former Husband’s attorney’s fees. This, too, was a facial error.
In Florida, the primary basis for awarding attorney’s fees in a divorce is found in statute 61.16. This law is not a “loser pays” system. The entire purpose of the statute is “to ensure that both parties have similar access to competent legal counsel.”
To award fees under this statute, a judge must make specific, written findings regarding:
- The need of the party asking for the fees.
- The ability to pay of the party being asked to pay.
The trial court in Kiswani made no findings on the Former Husband’s need for fees or the Former Wife’s ability to pay them. The court simply ordered her to pay. This is a fundamental error. An award of attorney’s fees in a dissolution proceeding that is not based on these findings must be reversed. This is a critical protection that prevents a financially weaker spouse from being bankrupted by the litigation.
Conclusion: A Judgment Full of Holes
The Kiswani v. Hafza case is a powerful legal document, not for what it says about the parties, but for what it says about the law. It is a checklist of “what not to do” for a trial judge. It confirms that the statutory requirements for parenting plans, equitable distribution, income imputation, and attorney’s fees are not “suggestions”—they are mandatory.
For any person in Tampa navigating a divorce, this case is a stark warning. The final judgment is the most important document you will receive. If it is built on a foundation of procedural and factual errors, as the Kiswani judgment was, it is not “final” at all. It is merely a prelude to a costly and time-consuming appeal.
The value of an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer is not just in their ability to argue at trial. It is in their technical knowledge to ensure that every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed in the final judgment, protecting you from these fundamental errors and ensuring that your final judgment is, in fact, final.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a complex divorce, you need an advocate who understands these intricate legal requirements. Contact our office for a consultation to review your case and ensure your rights are protected by a legally sound and enforceable final judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is a “facial error” in a Florida divorce judgment? A “facial error” is a legal mistake that is so obvious it can be seen just by reading the final judgment, without needing a trial transcript. Examples include failing to include mandatory findings, making contradictory statements, or violating a clear statute.
Can I appeal my divorce case if I did not have a court reporter at my trial? It is extremely difficult. You will almost certainly lose on any factual issues. Your only chance of winning is if your Tampa divorce lawyer can identify a “fundamental error on the face of the judgment,” as happened in the Kiswani case.
Can a Florida judge order my child’s therapist to decide our timesharing? No. This is an “impermissible delegation of judicial authority.” A judge can hear recommendations from a therapist as evidence, but the judge (and only the judge) must make the final decision about your timesharing.
What are the “mandatory findings” for equitable distribution? A judge must “show their work” in the final judgment. This means they must make written findings that (1) Identify, (2) Classify (as marital/nonmarital), (3) Value, and (4) Distribute all assets and liabilities. A judgment without these findings is reversible.
What is the “need and ability to pay” test for attorney’s fees? In a Florida divorce, a judge cannot just order one side to pay the other’s fees. The court must first make specific findings that the party asking for fees has a need for them and that the other party has the financial ability to pay them.
The McKinney Law Group: Tampa Divorce Lawyers for a Fresh Start
Divorce is more than an ending — it’s the beginning of your next chapter. Our Tampa attorneys guide you through every stage with clarity, strategy, and respect for your future.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] for a confidential consultation.