Giroux v. Giroux
In an appeal from a dissolution judgment, the Third DCA held that because the trial court materially amended the final judgment (correcting a six-figure account valuation and adding a $491,291 equalizer payment), the husband's second rehearing motion was authorized and his notice of appeal was timely — but appellate review was limited to the amended portions, requiring dismissal of issues directed at the unamended judgment. The court affirmed the remaining merits issues for lack of a trial transcript, but reversed because the trial court granted the wife's rehearing/clarification motion without a hearing and adopted her proposed order denying the husband's second rehearing motion less than an hour after it was served.
Key facts
- Husband and wife dissolved their marriage; the trial court entered a final judgment, then materially amended it by correcting a six-figure account valuation and adding a $491,291 equalizer payment.
- Husband filed a second motion for rehearing directed at the amended judgment; wife filed a motion for rehearing/clarification, which the trial court granted without a hearing and adopted her proposed order denying husband's motion less than an hour after it was served.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is a useful double-edged tool: it confirms that a material amendment to a final judgment reopens the rehearing/appeal window but simultaneously narrows appellate review to the amended portions — a trap for… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.