Janosky v. Janosky · No. 5D2025-1404 (Fla. 5th DCA) · Decided October 9, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal has reversed parts of a Flagler County divorce judgment, holding that the trial court erred in entering an ambiguous or inconsistent judgment on timesharing and communication, and that a judgment letting the former wife buy out the marital home while saying nothing about the former husband’s mortgage liability is legally deficient. The court reached those conclusions on a limited appellate record and affirmed the rest of the judgment.
What Happened
Todd Janosky, the former husband, raised three issues on appeal from the final judgment ending what the court called “highly contentious divorce proceedings” with Jillian Janosky, the former wife. Only a partial trial transcript was in the appellate record, and the answer brief raised the omission. The court therefore limited its review to the pleadings, the judgment, and other matters in the record, and cited its earlier decision in Lane v. Lane, which held that in the absence of a trial transcript an appellate court must affirm “unless clear error appears on the face of the final judgment.” On that limited review, it found that two of the former husband’s claims had merit. The opinion does not describe the third issue.
What the Court Held
Timesharing and communication. The final judgment gave the former wife timesharing with the minor children every Wednesday and Thursday and the former husband every Monday and Tuesday, rotated weekends, and designated the parties “equal timesharing parents,” with details set out in an attached parenting plan. But the parenting plan arguably assigned the days the opposite way, and it referred to a previously existing timesharing schedule that was not attached.
Communication terms conflicted as well. The final judgment limited communication between the parents to an online co-parenting app, except for emergencies that must be acted on in less than 48 hours. The parenting plan, by contrast, allowed the parents to communicate “by telephone, text, e-mail or other electronic means as long as both parties agree to the type of electronic communication.”
Citing its own decision in Murnane v. Murnane, 411 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), along with Justice v. Justice, 80 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), and Dowers v. Johnson, 392 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the court held that “the trial court erred in entering an ambiguous or inconsistent judgment regarding timesharing and communication.”
The marital home. The final judgment allowed the former wife to buy the former husband’s interest in the marital home within ninety days, fixed the sum due to him for his equity, and otherwise ordered the home listed for sale, with extensive directions governing a sale. Relying on Patel v. Patel, 162 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), and Jones v. Jones, 184 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), the court held that a final judgment “that permits Former Wife to purchase the marital home but is silent about Former Husband’s mortgage liability is legally deficient.” In Patel, the court had remanded with instructions for the spouse keeping the home to attempt to refinance and for a hold harmless provision if refinancing could not be obtained; the Janosky opinion does not spell out specific remand instructions.
“The Final Judgment is otherwise affirmed.”
Why It Matters
The decision shows that a missing or partial trial transcript does not insulate a dissolution judgment from errors visible on its face. Internal conflicts between a final judgment and the parenting plan it incorporates, and a home buyout provision that does not address the other spouse’s mortgage liability, were reversible on the record available.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | Fifth District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 5D2025-1404 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Flagler County (Judge Christopher A. France) |
| Opinion by | Judge MacIver (Chief Judge Jay and Judge Eisnaugle concurring) |
| Decided | October 9, 2026 |
| Result | Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded |