MELVIN O. CARLTON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ELLEN S. CARLTON, 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 a dissolution of marriage appeal, the former husband challenged six issues in the trial court's final judgment. The appellate court found three issues with merit: the trial court failed to make equitable distribution of personal property (leaving it to a coin flip), ordered unenforceable health insurance provisions, and awarded attorney's fees without sufficient findings. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment and remanded for reconsideration of these three issues.
The court held that remand was required for the trial court to rule on equitable distribution of personal property, to reconsider health insurance orders with specific findings regarding reasonable availability, and to provide specific findings on attorney's fees awards including hourly rate, hours expended, and any enhancement or reduction factors.
[1] An appellate court cannot review a distribution of personal property when the distribution has not yet occurred and the trial court has not made a ruling on the equities.
[2] A trial court must make specific findings regarding the hourly rate, number of hours reasonably expended, and appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors when awa…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Insurance is reasonably available if the obligor has access at a reasonable rate to group insurance.”
Establishes the statutory standard for when health insurance must be included in child support orders under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were in a divorce proceeding with a relatively large amount of personal property to distribute. The trial court contemplated determining p…
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
This appeal is from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband raises six issues, and we find that three have merit.
First, the parties were unable to agree on the distribution of their relatively large amount of personal property. In this case a coin flip relative to the personal property was to take place after the entry of the order on appeal. Thus, there is no basis for appellate review. Shea v. Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, remand is required for the trial court either to rule on the equities of the actual distribution of the personal property on the lists submitted by the parties or to equitably distribute the property.
Second, the trial court ordered “that the Wife shall have a COBRA option to continue health insurance through the Husband’s carrier.” In addition, the trial court ordered that “[f]or so long as [his] support obligation continues, the Husband shall maintain major medical and dental insurance for the benefit of the minor child.” The uncontroverted evidence is that the former husband does not have access to group insurance except through the former wife’s policy at work. There is also no evidence that the former husband’s insurance carrier from his prior employment offered a COBRA option, or that if the carrier did offer the option, the window of opportunity to elect the option is still open. Subsection 61.13(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), states, “Each order for child support shall contain a provision for health insurance for the minor child when the insurance is reasonably available. Insurance is reasonably available if the obligor has access at a reasonable rate to group insurance.” Therefore, on remand the trial court shall reconsider its ruling on these health insurance matters. In its reconsideration, the trial court shall make specific findings.
Third, the trial court ordered the former husband to pay his former wife’s attorney’s fees, but the order does not set forth the basis for the award. Thus, on remand the trial court “must set forth specific findings Concerning the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors.” Hoffay v. Hoffay, 555 So. 2d 1309, 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
The remainder of the final judgment of dissolution is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. Richmond B. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…3), and without making the findings required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). See Payne v. Payne, 617 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Carlton v. Carlton, 599 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Although Judge Roberts refused to receive evidence on the former wife’s petition for attorney’s fees, he ordered the former husband to pay $250.00 toward those attorney’s fees. The partial award constitutes an implicit finding…
-
Vada Burroughs v. Burroughs, 921 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ubstantial evidence. Finally, the lower court erred in directing the parties to divide their furniture and household items, despite the wife’s request for the trial court to make such division in its judgment of dissolution. See Carlton v. Carlton, 599 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing the trial court’s order to the parties to divide their personal property by a coin flip, and directing the court to either “rule on the equities of the actual distribution of the personal property on the lists sub…
-
Feagle v. Feagle, 696 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…h insurance is reasonably available to appellant as that term is defined in section 61.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. Therefore, we REVERSE that portion of the final dissolution order and REMAND for reconsideration of the issue. See, e.g., Carlton v. Carlton, 599 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Rosen v. Rosen, 655 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995); Dehler v. Dehler, 648 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court may take further evidence as necessary to determine the reasonable availability of health insurance. The o…
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
- Hoffay v. Hoffay, 555 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Shea v. Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)