NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MICHELE L. McKAY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D15-3891

)

LANCE McELHINEY, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed November 23, 2016.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco

County; Susan L. Barthle, Judge.

Gary A. Urso, New Port Richey, for 

Appellant.

Joshua A. Law of Law Legal Group, P.A.,

Tampa, for Appellee.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

In these postdissolution proceedings, Michele L. McKay (the Former Wife) 

appeals a supplemental final judgment entered over seven months after the final 

hearing and contends a new final hearing is required when the trial court did not make 

findings or rule on numerous issues submitted at the hearing. Lance McElhiney (the 

Former Husband) concedes error. We reverse and remand for a new final hearing.
- 2 -

In 2006, the trial court entered the final judgment of dissolution of marriage 

which incorporated the parties' marital settlement agreement. The parties have one son 

who was born in 2002. On July 1, 2011, the Former Husband filed a supplemental 

petition to modify the parenting plan and child support in part due to the Former Wife's 

relocation. The Former Wife filed her answer and supplemental counterpetition that 

also sought to modify the parenting plan and child support. Both parties sought 

attorney's fees. 

On November 21, 2014, the Former Husband filed a voluntary dismissal of 

his supplemental petition. A final hearing on the Former Wife's supplemental petition

was held on November 24, 2014. The Former Wife presented evidence such as expert 

testimony on the child's needs, school records, and financial documents for the parties. 

She also submitted a proposed long distance parenting plan. 

In April and June 2015, the parties corresponded with the trial court and 

requested a ruling. The parties noted that they needed to arrange the summer timesharing. In addition, one of the issues was whether the child would be permitted to 

attend summer school pursuant to a Massachusetts individualized education plan. 

The trial court sent a response on June 16, 2015, and enclosed its 

handwritten rulings from the court's notes. As a result, a brief supplemental final 

judgment was entered in accordance with those notes. The supplemental judgment 

made no findings of fact and failed to address several of the issues. Significantly, the 

trial court did not provide a parenting plan and only generally stated that the child would 

spend summers with the Former Husband and did not address summer school or timesharing during holidays at all. The supplemental judgment does not address the 
- 3 -

amount of child support. Rather, the judgment provides that "arrears will be retroactive 

to the date of filing of the Former Wife's Supplemental Petition" but provides no method 

to calculate child support or medical expenses at issue. The supplemental judgment 

does not mention attorney's fees. The Former Wife filed a motion for new trial or 

rehearing and pointed out the deficiencies in the supplemental judgment. The trial court 

denied the motion without explanation.

On appeal, the Former Wife argues that the delay in the trial court's ruling, 

its failure to comply with section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2014), and its failure to 

address many of the matters at issue require a new final hearing. An excessive delay in 

the entry of judgment combined with other factors can require reversal for a new trial. 

See McGoldrick v. McGoldrick, 940 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (determining 

that an eight-month delay and inconsistencies between the evidence and the final 

judgment required remand for a new trial); Caswell v. Caswell, 674 So. 2d 861, 862 

(Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (determining that a sixteen-month delay and inconsistencies 

between the oral ruling and the final judgment required a new final hearing). The 

Former Husband concedes that based on the delay in the trial court's ruling, the lack of 

findings, and the fact that the trial court did not address most of the matters submitted to 

it, further proceedings are required. 

Based on these circumstances, we reverse the supplemental final 

judgment and remand for a new final hearing on the Former Wife's supplemental 

counter petition. See McGoldrick, 940 So. 2d at 1277; Caswell, 674 So. 2d at 863.

Reversed and remanded.

LaROSE and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.