MARGARET JEANETTE STRICKLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMAN STRICKLAND, 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 this 23-year marriage dissolution case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets and alimony award because the judgment lacked findings of fact supporting the distribution and failed to address all marital assets discussed at trial. The court remanded for a new distribution order that properly accounts for all assets and justifies the division.
The court held that the trial court failed to complete the rulings necessary for true equitable distribution because it did not provide findings of fact supporting the division, failed to distribute all marital assets discussed at trial, and reduced permanent alimony without record support. The court reversed the equitable distribution and alimony award and remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A trial court must provide logic and justification for the division of marital assets to ensure an equitable distribution.
[2] In equitable distribution cases, a trial court may be required to make findings of fact to support its distribution of marital assets.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“each partner to a marriage is entitled to a fair share of the assets acquired during marriage. While the court is not required to make an equal division, there has to be some logic and justification for the division.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that equitable distribution requires fairness and justification, not necessarily equality
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret and Norman Strickland were married for 23 years, during which all marital assets were acquired. The trial court entered a final order of diss…
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
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Margaret Strickland (wife) challenges the final order of dissolution of marriage based on the ground that she did not receive an equitable share of the marital assets. We reverse because the record accompanying this appeal reflects that the trial judge failed to complete the rulings necessary to accord the parties a true equitable distribution of the marital assets.
This is a marriage of twenty-three years, during which all of the marital assets were acquired. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that each partner to a marriage is entitled to a fair share of the assets acquired during marriage. While the court is not required to make an equal division, there has to be some logic and justification for the division. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Furthermore, this court has held that in certain situations regarding equitable distribution, the trial court should make findings of fact to support the distribution. See Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In Clemson, the trial court failed to distribute all the assets that were discussed at trial, and also failed to make any findings supporting the distribution that was made. While this court does not mandate that the trial court make specific findings in every case, it notes that in certain situations, such findings are necessary for proper appellate review. Id. at 78.
In the instant case, the judgment does not proyide any findings of fact to support the distribution of marital assets. Additionally, the judgment is silent as to certain assets that were discussed at trial. A review of the record supports the fact the wife has an interest in Strickland’s Auto Electric, the two notes receivable, and the GMC truck.
Lastly, we note that the reduction of periodic permanent alimony awarded the wife is unsupported by the record. See Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Therefore, we reverse and set aside the equitable distribution and the award of permanent alimony to the wife, and remand for further proceedings and a new order addressing distribution of all the marital assets. Furthermore, we urge the trial court, in its review of the proper division of marital assets, to address the reduction of permanent alimony in accordance with this opinion. As to the remaining portions of the final judgment, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings as directed.
LEHAN, J., and LUTEN, CLAIRE K., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…sum alimony. There were other assets about which the trial court learned during final hearing, but did not valúate or distribute; we thus remand for the court to provide valuations for these items and distribute same. See Strickland v. Strickland, 567 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (where judgment is silent as to certain assets that were discussed at trial, cause must be remanded for further proceedings and entry of a new order that addresses distribution of all the assets). At bar, that would include househ…
-
Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ns, we conclude the trial court erred. First, the trial court is required to include in the final judgment written findings setting forth the rationale for the distribution of marital assets. § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat. (1991); Strickland v. Strickland, 567 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In the absence of equitable factors compelling a different result, the division of marital assets should be substantially equal. Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1991). Here the distribution of assets is clearly unequa…
-
Wildtraut v. Cathleen J. Wildtraut, 787 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…al distribution, it must be based on a rationale which is supported by the record. Kirkland v. Kirkland, 618 So. 2d 295, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved of on other grounds, Boyett v. Boyett, 703 So. 2d 451 (Fla.1997); Strickland v. Strickland, 567 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (noting that trial court need not make findings of fact in every case, but such findings are frequently necessary to facilitate meaningful appellate review of the unequal division of marital property). The wife contends that…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Clemson v. Cathleen Carol Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)