A final hearing on your dissolution of marriage is held.  The court at the end of the hearing enters an oral pronouncement and directs the attorneys to prepare the judgment.  It is not the attorney’s responsibility to ensure the final judgment is entered within a reasonable time.  Rather, the Fourth District Court of Appeal and other Florida Courts recognizes it is the duty of the trial court.  Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999); Locke v. Locke,832 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(Even though delay was in large part due to attorneys failure to agree on an order, it was nevertheless the trial judge’s responsibility to ensure that the judgment was entered in a timely fashion.).    

After months of waiting, the court finally enters a final judgment.  “An excessive delay in the entry of judgment combined with other factors can require reversal” for a new final hearing. See McKay v. McElhiney, 205 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999)(Reversed because 10 month delay was excessive, there were numerous inconsistencies between the final judgment and the facts as presented in the final hearing and court failed to include specific findings regarding the alimony award.).

Whether or not the delay is excessive is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and there is no bright line test.  See Carnicella v. Carnicella, 140 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2014). However, Florida courts tend to recognize a delay as excessive or may require reversal when combined with other factors when the delay is six months or more. See Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999)(Reversed because 10 month delay was excessive, there were numerous inconsistencies between the final judgment and the facts as presented in the final hearing and court failed to include specific findings regarding the alimony award);  Caswell v. Caswell,  674 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (New final hearing required due to a sixteen-month delay and inconsistencies between the oral ruling and the final judgment); McKay v. McElhiney,205 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2016)(Reversed and remanded for new final hearing due to over 6 month delay, lack of findings and trial court’s failure to address most of the matters before it); Carnicella v. Carnicella, 140 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2014)(Reversed and remanded for new trial when there was six month delay “plus an indication that something” was “seriously amiss on the merits.”);  McGoldrick v. McGoldrick,940 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(Reversed and remanded for new trial due to 8 month delay and the final judgment contained inconsistent, confusing and contradictory provisions including findings unsupported by the evidence.); Locke v. Locke,832 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(Reversed and remanded for rehearing when delay was one year after the dissolution hearing and there were discrepancies between what the court ordered at the final hearing, and what was actually reflected in the final judgment); Walker v. Walker, 719 so. 2d 977 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1998)(A 9.5 months delay, which resulted in the judgment being replete with inconsistencies and deficiencies was remanded for a new trial as a result.).  

A delay or an excessive delay, standing alone, most likely does not justify reversal for a new final hearing.  See Stanfield v. Marquis, 201 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 5^th DCCA 2016); Knipe v. Knipe, 731 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999); Florida Air Academy, Inc. v. McKinley, 688 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1997).  Rather an excessive delay, plus other factors may justify reversal for a new final hearing. See McKay v. McElhiney, 205 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999).  The other factors to consider include: 1) whether there is any conflict or inconsistency or discrepancy between the judge’s statements or findings at the time of the final hearing and the judgment entered later, 2) whether required findings are included, and 3) if there is a factual finding in the final judgment unsupported by the trial evidence.” Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999); Caswell v. Caswell,  674 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) McKay v. McElhiney,205 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2016); McGoldrick v. McGoldrick,940 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Locke v. Locke,832 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Knipe v. Knipe,731 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999); Walker v.Walker, 719 so. 2d 977 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1998).

However, the courts may refuse “to reverse a final judgment on grounds of delay where the court’s factual findings are supported by the record or where there is no conflict or inconsistency” between oral pronouncements at the final hearing and the written final judgment. See Knipe v. Knipe, 731 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999); Florida Air Academy, Inc. v. McKinley, 688 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1997)(Refused to reverse after 15 month delay when there was no conflicts or inconsistencies.). Regardless, if there is a delay don’t overlook the possibility of reversal.