SAMUEL HOLMES, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERTA HOLMES, 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 Fourth District reversed three post-dissolution orders because the trial court's calculation of the husband's special equities in separate property was erroneous under the percentage ratio theory established in the related dissolution appeal, and the attorney's fees judgment lacked required findings.
Post-dissolution orders must be reversed when they depend on an erroneous calculation of special equities in separate property that was reversed in the main dissolution case, and an attorney's fees judgment must be reversed for lack of findings.
[1] An attorney's fees judgment in a dissolution case must be reversed when it lacks required findings of fact, even if the underlying judgment being executed upon is valid.
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court calculated the husband's special equities in premarital separate property that had been substantial…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former husband appeals three post-dissolution final orders. We reverse.
The issues of the instant appeal, while presented separately, are interrelated with those of the appeal of the parties’ dissolution of marriage, wherein this court reversed the trial court’s calculation of the husband’s special equities in separate, premarital owned property which had been enhanced substantially in value through joint efforts. Holmes v. Holmes, 578 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We remanded to the trial court for its recalculation of the special equities based on the “percentage ratio” theory using the property values the trial court had determined previously. Id. at 325.
While reversal in the main case compels reversal of the trial court’s orders now being appealed, the wife, on remand, is still entitled to a credit of one-half of the amount of the “Order Regarding American Savings Loan Obligation.”
Appellee claimed attorney’s fees expended in her attempts to execute on a judgment we now reverse. Therefore, we reverse also the “Fees Judgment.” In addition, appellant contends, and we agree, that the “Fees Judgment” must be reversed for an additional reason, the absence of findings. See Manuel v. Manuel, 498 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction to proceed in accordance herewith.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reich v. Bette Ann Reich, 652 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…owitz, 586 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citing Griffiths v. Griffiths, 563 So. 2d 773, 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)); see Gregg v. Gregg, 474 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Holmes v. Holmes, 578 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), appeal after remand, 588 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983). The exact formula to be employed in calculating the amount of special equity, which is based on the percentage the separate contribution bore to the acquisition cost, is set…
Authorities Cited
- Manuel v. Manuel, 498 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Holmes v. Alberta Holmes, 578 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)