MARIO GILBERT MORENO, APPELLANT,
v.
GLORIA VECCHIO MORENO, 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the court held that a trial court's failure to make findings of fact regarding an alimony award violates Florida statutory requirements and prevents meaningful appellate review. The court vacated and remanded the permanent periodic alimony award for the trial court to enter required factual findings.
Meaningful appellate review of an alimony award is not possible without findings of fact from the trial court. Under Florida Statutes Section 61.08(1), effective July 1, 1991, the court must include findings of fact relative to enumerated factors supporting an award or denial of alimony.
[1] A trial court must include findings of fact supporting an award or denial of alimony in all dissolution actions, pursuant to section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes.
[2] The failure of a trial court to make findings of fact in a final judgment of dissolution renders meaningful appellate review of an alimony award impossible.
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“In all dissolution actions, the court shall include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony.”
Statutory requirement effective July 1, 1991, mandating findings of fact in alimony awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMario and Gloria Moreno were married for six years with no children. At dissolution, the Husband was 43 years old earning less than $11,000 annually a…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The issue on appeal is whether meaningful review of a permanent periodic alimony award is possible where the trial court made no findings of fact in its final judgment of dissolution.
Mario (the Husband) and Gloria (the Wife) Moreno were married on March 3, 1986 in Broward County, Florida. The Husband filed a petition for dissolution in November of 1990. At the time of the dissolution, the Husband was 43 years old and the Wife was 53 years old. The marriage lasted six years and the parties had no children. During the hearing, the Husband introduced evidence that he worked as a groomer at a horse racetrack and that his annual income had not exceeded $11,-000.00 in the three years preceding the divorce. The Wife testified that she was employed as a waitress and worked about 14 hours a week, which netted her approximately $70.00 a week. The Husband testified his assets total $290.00; the Wife’s financial affidavit shows a value of $92,-702.00 for her assets. She indicated she had some problem with arthritis but admitted she had not seen a doctor since 1985.
The marriage was dissolved on March 11, 1992, at which time the court ordered the Husband to pay $50.00 per week to the Wife as permanent periodic alimony. In its final judgment of dissolution, the trial court made no findings of fact. The Husband appeals the award of permanent periodic alimony, contending that the trial court’s failure to make findings of fact renders meaningful appellate review impossible.
Effective July 1, 1991, the Florida Legislature added the following sentence to section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the statute dealing with award of alimony:
In all dissolution actions, the court shall include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony. (Emphasis added).
Florida courts have recognized the necessity of findings of fact at the trial court level prior to meaningful appellate review. See Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Stelk v. Stelk, 442 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). This requirement makes sense in light of the fact that an appellant challenging an award of alimony must “clearly demonstrate that the trial court’s findings and conclusions are incorrect and that the court abused his discretion by entry of the alimony award.” (Emphasis added). Baker v. Baker, 299 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1975). An appellant would be hard pressed to accomplish this task if the court enunciated no findings whatsoever, as in the instant case. Based on section 61.08(1), without some findings from the trial court, we are unable to review the final judgment.
Accordingly, we vacate the final judgment of dissolution to the extent of the permanent periodic alimony award and remand this cause to the trial court for findings of fact as required by section 61.08(1), Fla.Stat. (1991).
VACATED and REMANDED.
COWART and DIAMANTES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Woodard v. Jaymie Sands Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…make “findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award ... of alimony.” On remand, the court is instructed to make such findings. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In particular, the court should determine the husband’s current income because it is his current income (or income expected in the immediate future) that constitutes his ability to pay. The court instead found that the husband’…
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…une 1991, prior to the amendment to section 61.08(1), effective July 1, 1991, which requires trial courts to make “findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in [section 61.08(2) ].” § 61.08(1), Pla. Stat. (1991).3 Compare Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Pla. 5th DCA 1992) (post-amendment dissolution matter where issue on appeal was whether meaningful review of permanent alimony award was possible where trial court made no findings of fact in its final judgment of dissolution; case was remanded for…1 / 3
-
Hill v. Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…this statute, our court has consistently ruled that the failure to provide such findings constitutes reversible error. See Brown v. Brown, 626 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Review of the final judgment reveals that the trial court set forth few facts in suppoi"t of its rulings. The judgment explains that the Wife is 44 years old and the Husband is 47. The order states that the Wife is a registered…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Doyle Edward Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1983)
- Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Henzel v. State, 307 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1975)
- Brown v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 307 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1975)
- Baker v. Baker, 299 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Stelk v. Stelk, 442 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)