Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
It is common in a Florida parenting plan, for the court to specify vacation dates during summer for each parent. For example, a parenting plan might state the parties will follow the regular time-sharing schedule except that each parent is entitled to take two weeks of vacation with the child each year. If not carefully worded, this provision can create confusion. This was an issue in the case Murnane v. Murnane, 5D2023-1128 (Fla. 5th DCA May 2, 2025).
The former wife in this case appealed multiple issues, and the former husband cross-appealed. The appellate court only found merit in four arguments raised by the former wife and affirmed on remaining issues. One issue related to the summer time-sharing provided for in the final judgment. This provision stated “[t]he parents shall follow the ordinary time-share schedule as set forth more fully herein. However, during the summer break from school, each parent may enjoy time-share for up to two (2) consecutive weeks for vacation purposes. These weeks may be enjoyed consecutively or separately.” The former wife contended that this invited chaos and confusion where it could be interpreted that a parent could have five weeks of exclusive time-sharing based on the parties’ alternating week schedule.
The appellate court held “To the extent that the trial court’s instructions can be interpreted in multiple ways, thus leading to confusion, we agree with Former Wife. Therefore, we remand this issue to the trial court to clarify its directions on how the parties are to share time with the children during summer breaks.” Turning to child support, the appellate court found error in the trial court’s contradicting holding that the parties would each claim one child for tax purposes, yet in the child support guidelines, both children were assigned to the former wife as tax exemptions. The court also failed to give the former wife credit for payment of health insurance premiums for the children in the guidelines.
As to alimony, the former husband’s request for the same was denied, yet the final judgment awarded him alimony arrears. The appellate court reversed upon the former husband’s concession of error. Last, regarding equitable distribution, the appellate court held there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s valuation of former husband’s retirement accounts. The case was remanded to address these errors.
Schedule your consultation with a Miami divorce attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.