BRIAN M. CALHOUN, APPELLANT,
v.
SUE L. CALHOUN, 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.
Brian Calhoun appeals an alimony award of $500 per month to his former wife Sue. The court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the former wife's financial need, leaving insufficient evidentiary basis for meaningful appellate review.
The award of permanent periodic alimony is reversed and remanded. The trial court must make specific findings of fact regarding the details of the former wife's financial need to support an alimony award, and such findings were not made in this case.
[1] An award of permanent periodic alimony requires specific findings of fact regarding the recipient's financial need.
[2] Evidence from a temporary support hearing cannot be considered on appeal of a final judgment unless stipulated by the parties or formally introduced into the record of th…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The court made no specific findings of fact regarding the details of the wife's financial need in the order appealed, nor does a review of the record reveal sufficient evidence of the factual elements required to determine the amount of the wife's needs.”
Establishes the core deficiency in the trial court's order—lack of specific findings of fact regarding financial need
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrian and Sue Calhoun were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court awarded permanent periodic alimony to Sue in the amount of…
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 Financial Need cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
On this appeal from an amended final judgment of dissolution we review the award of permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $500 per month to Sue Calhoun, the former wife. Appellant Brian Calhoun, the former husband, contends there is insufficient evidence to support the amount of the award.
It is evident from the judgment and record that the alimony award was made solely for purposes of support. The court made no specific findings of fact regarding the details of the wife’s financial need in the order appealed, nor does a review of the record reveal sufficient evidence of the factual elements required to determine the amount of the wife’s needs. Appellee argues that evidence adduced at a temporary support hearing some eight months prior to the final hearing establishes the quantum of the former wife’s need, but it does not appear in the record that the parties stipulated that such evidence would be part of the record of the final hearing, and the wife did not offer a transcript of that hearing to be received and considered by the court at final hearing. Therefore, we cannot consider such evidence upon this appeal and are left without an adequate basis to make a meaningful review of the appealed order. The award of 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 AND REMANDED.
SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelle J. Fitzgerald v. Geary S. Fitzgerald, 558 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…asis. Moreover, if an explicit finding of ouster is essential 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); Clem…
-
Yong-Son KIM v. Bradshaw, 569 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…the trial court for issuance of an amended final judgment containing adequate findings of fact to support the judgment.1 See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Raehn v. Raehn, 557 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Calhoun v. Calhoun, 554 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); 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). WIGGINTON, MIN…
-
Owens v. Owens, 559 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…order and remand for further findings of fact on the critical issues not explicated in the appealed order. Appellate courts do not hesitate to do so where such findings are essential to facilitate effective appellate review. See Calhoun v. Calhoun, 554 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); 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…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Clemson v. Cathleen Carol Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- LEE v. LEE, 544 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Verena Strickler v. Strickler, 548 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Spleen v. Rogers Grp., Inc., 548 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)