Case ID: so2d_668/html/1093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Susan ERICKSON, Appellant/Petitioner, v. James Edward ERICKSON, Appellee/Respondent.
    No. 94-2863.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    March 5, 1996.
    W. Gregg McCaulie of Hand, Drew, Show-alter, Mercier, Kelly & McCaulie, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant/Petitioner.
    No appearance, for Appellee/Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review the final order of dissolution of Mary Susan Erickson and James Edward Erickson. The parties entered into a stipulated agreement just prior to the final hearing; the agreement was recited at the hearing; the recitation contained no provision regarding the federal income tax deduction for the parties’ only child. The final judgment however contains a paragraph (six) relating to the federal income tax deduction. The inclusion in the final judgment of a provision that was not in the parties’ agreement is error. See Steiner v. Steiner, 638 So.2d 174, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

We therefore reverse and remand for entry of a corrected final judgment, deleting paragraph six. We affirm in all other respects.

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.