Unger v. Unger

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

We disagree with the former husband’s proposed remedy. Although the caselaw holds that “substantive changes in the trial court’s [oral] ruling are not ministerial and are considered void” when a disqualified judge issues an order after disqualification, Godin, 275 So. 3d at 701, we disagree that the entire 2025 written contempt order is void. Because we have the transcript from the 2025 contempt hearing, we can determine what oral determinations were made before the initial judge’s disqualification. Thus, we hold that the proper remedy in this case is to reverse the written contempt order and remand for the initial judge to (1) vacate the 2025 written contempt order, and (2) enter an amended written contempt order which removes the two findings discussed above that the initial judge did not orally announce during the 2025 contempt hearing. Except as discussed above, we reject the former husband’s other arguments raised on appeal. As we warned in our order striking the former husband’s initial brief with leave to amend, we again caution the former husband about the use of artificial intelligence in preparation of documents filed with the court. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.