VERENA STRICKLER, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES W. STRICKLER, 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 reversed and remanded a dissolution judgment because it lacked findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary for meaningful appellate review of property division and alimony awards.
A final judgment dissolving a marriage must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting any division of assets or award of alimony to permit appellate review.
[1] A final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the division of marital assets and any award of alimo…
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 intelligenceWife appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing the trial court failed to distribute any share of properties held solely in the hus…
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 Division cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage arguing that the trial court erred by (1) failing to distribute to the wife any share in the properties held solely in the husband’s name and (2) awarding the wife an insufficient amount of rehabilitative alimony.
Although the parties do not raise the issue on appeal, the final judgment purporting to dissolve their marriage is silent in this respect. Neither does it contain findings of fact or conclusions of law which would permit any kind of meaningful appellate review of the division of property in issue or the award of rehabilitative alimony.
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed from is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter an amended final judgment dissolving the marriage, if such is supported by the evidence, and containing findings of fact supporting any division of assets or award of alimony. In fashioning the amended final judgment, the trial judge may wish to review the following authorities: section 61.-075(l)(g), Florida Statutes (Ch. 88-98, Laws of Florida); Macaluso v. Macaluso, 523 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Buttner v. Buttner, 484 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Turner v. Turner, 529 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) and Pardue v. Pardue, 518 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SMITH and MINER, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…1989); Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); but see Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (specific findings of fact required in all cases determining equitable distribution or special equities); Strickler v. Strickler, 548 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)[14 F.L.W. 1997] (judgment reversed due to absence of findings even though issue not raised on appeal). When findings are expressly requested by the parties and are necessary to permit appellate review of a complex, disputed divor…
-
Nelle J. Fitzgerald v. Geary S. Fitzgerald, 558 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…al to sustain the award of this special equity, rather than reversing the award on its merits, we should remand for specific findings of fact on this essential issue. See Calhoun v. Calhoun, 554 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Strickler v. Strickler, 548 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lee v. Lee, 544 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); DePoorter v. DePoorter, 509 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). [*127] In…
-
Calhoun v. Calhoun, 554 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…permanent alimony is reversed and the cause is remanded for findings of fact in accordance herewith. The court may receive further evidence if that is deemed necessary. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 38? So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Strickler v. Strickler, 548 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Lee v. Lee, 544 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); DePoorter v. DePoorter, 509 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). REVERSED…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Buttner v. Manfred W. Buttner, 484 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Russell v. State, 529 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Pardue v. Pardue, 518 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Fica v. State, 523 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- MacAluso v. MacAluso, 523 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)