JUDITH F. TOMLINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID K. TOMLINSON, 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.
The court affirmed the dissolution of marriage and the finding that the wife voluntarily quit her job, but vacated and remanded the trial court's rulings on marital property distribution, alimony, household goods, and the requirement to vacate the home because the trial court failed to provide specific findings of fact.
A trial court must provide specific findings of fact supporting its adjudications regarding marital property distribution, alimony, and related matters in a dissolution of marriage case.
[1] Trial courts in dissolution of marriage cases must provide specific findings of fact supporting adjudications regarding marital property distribution, alimony awards, and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJudith Tomlinson appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contesting the trial court's rulings on the marital home, property distribution…
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 Property Distribution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, Judith Tomlinson, the former wife, raises seven issues. She does not contest the adjudication of dissolution and that adjudication stands.
We find sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that appellant voluntarily quit her job and that finding is affirmed. After careful review of the record, however, we have been unable to determine the factual basis upon which the trial court predicated the rulings in regard to the marital home, property distribution, the award of rehabilitative alimony, the distribution of household goods, and the requirement that the wife vacate the marital home on short notice.
Therefore, with the exception of the two adjudications here-inabove referred to, the final judgment is vacated and this cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of specific findings of fact supporting the adjudications with respect to the parties’ marital property and the wife’s support. Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Schang v. Schang, 516 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Turner v. Turner, 529 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); DePoorter v. DePoorter, 509 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Smith v. Smith, 487 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA); rev. denied, 496 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
SMITH, C.J., and ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…. See Zaborowski v. Zaborowski, 547 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We recognize the burden placed upon trial courts by the equitable distribution statute, section 61.075, and by various cases requiring factual findings. See Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 536 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Turner v. Turner, 529 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The trial court cannot possibly fulfill this duty unless counsel for the spouse seeking equitable distribution places the…
-
Clemson v. Cathleen Carol Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…iving from the sale of the Michigan residence. However, from the court’s final judgment and the absence of findings we cannot adequately review the equitability of the lump sum alimony award made to her for that purpose. See, Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 536 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Therefore, we find it necessary to remand with directions to the trial court to make specific findings in respect to assets not disposed of by the final judgment and to ascribe values to those assets used to effectuate equitable…
-
Berry v. State, 561 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Where a defendant was in a position of familial authority and by virtue of that authority a special trust existed which he breached, a valid reason for a guideline departure sentence existed. Gopaul v. State, 536 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In our view the same rule applies notwithstanding that the rape victim is the defendant’s emancipated teen-aged daughter. It was the familial relationship which brought the girl, along with her infant child, back to her father’s…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DePOORTER v. Win Edward DePOORTER, 509 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Russell v. State, 529 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Smith v. Smith, 487 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Schang v. Schang, 516 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)