GUY M. JENNINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA A. JENNINGS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's final judgment dividing marital assets, finding the distribution was imbalanced and unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The court remanded for the trial court to redistribute assets more equitably and to address whether the husband could comply with the award requiring transfer of a Mercedes to the wife.
The trial court abused its discretion by dividing marital assets in an imbalanced fashion without competent substantial evidence to support the uneven distribution. The judgment is reversed and remanded for the trial court to redistribute the assets more equitably.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in dividing marital assets in an imbalanced fashion when there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the uneve…
[2] An appellate court may reverse and remand a case for reconsideration of marital asset division when the trial court's distribution is unsupported by competent substantial…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We agree with appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital assets in such an imbalanced fashion, as there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support that uneven distribution.”
States the core holding that the asset division was an abuse of discretion lacking evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuy M. Jennings and Linda A. Jennings were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court issued a final judgment dividing marital a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Guy M. Jennings, the former husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We agree with appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital assets in such an imbalanced fashion, as there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support that uneven distribution. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1985); Lamb v. Lamb, 500 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). See also, Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.1986); Green v. Green, 501 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Therefore we reverse and remand this case so that the trial court may revisit this entire cause, and while doing so, to also specifically address whether appellant is in a position to comply with the final judgment award of the parties’ Mercedes to appellee.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION
PER CURIAM.
Appellee has moved for clarification and reconsideration. She alleges among other things, that we have not stated in what way the distribution of assets was imbalanced. We admit that the opinion does not specifically direct what action the trial court should take in curing the imbalanced distribution of assets. Perhaps the opinion could have made a simple suggestion as, for example, that at the least, with all other awards left as they are, the husband should have been awarded one-half interest in the apartments located at 708-710 Oceanfront, Atlantic Beach. We have de- dined to so direct because, there are other alternatives available to the trial court. We believe that it would be more appropriate for the trial court to select from the alternatives rather than this court.
Appellee also requests us to reconsider our denial of her request for appellate attorney’s fees. We maintain the denial by this court to award appellate attorney’s fees, however, we clarify that our order is without prejudice to appellee to seek attorney’s fees from the trial court upon remand of the case to that court. That request can be considered by the trial court along with all other issues in the case and may take into account the efforts and activities involved in the appeal.
Except to the extent that this opinion clarifies or reconsiders the earlier opinion of this court, appellee’s motion for clarification and reconsideration is hereby denied.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Moore, 543 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…y years. Perhaps William was as much to blame as Carol for not ending it sooner, as the trial judge apparently concluded. However, even the most favorable reading of the record does not justify a 58.5/41.5 split favoring Carol. Jennings v. Jennings, 510 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rico v. Rico, 487 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Adamson v. [*257] Adamson, 458 So. 2d 1984). 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA Appellant argues that the court should have picked a valuation date of 1981 for the marital assets, since the par…
-
Overstreet v. Overstreet, 513 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ion. Under such circumstances, meaningful appellate review is impossible and the case should be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration and/or more specific findings. Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987);5 Jennings v. Jennings, 510 So. 2d 994, (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 512 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). See In Re Marriage of Iverson, 508 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Grant v. Grant, 506 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gregg v. Gregg, 474 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3rd DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1985)
- Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1986)
- Margerie Green v. Green, 501 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Lamb v. Hoyt L. Lamb, 500 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)