The attached alimony case has a tortured procedural history, apparently due to things that were happening during the passage of time between trial and the final judgment. The original trial judge made oral pronouncements and requested submissions of proposed alimony findings, and the final judgment that was later entered did not accurately reflect the oral pronouncements. Then, a successor judge was requested to fix some of the problems, but the successor judge found that the difference between the oral pronouncement and the written final judgment was not so different as it required reversal. The appellate court disagreed, as the differences between the oral pronouncement and the final judgment were clear on the face of the order. A new trial is required to sort through everything, including the alimony award which was not adequately explained due to a lack of complete statutory findings.
Read More: Schmidt-v-Schmidt