CYNTHIA SEVOR, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE D. SEVOR, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a divorce judgment for inequitable asset distribution because the trial court failed to make specific findings of value and marital/nonmarital designations as required by statute, and remanded for reconsideration of the wife's potential claim to a portion of the husband's personal injury settlement.
A trial court's final judgment in a dissolution of marriage must contain specific findings regarding the value of each significant asset and a marital/nonmarital designation for each asset as required by section 61.075, Florida Statutes, or the judgment is reversible.
[1] A trial court's final judgment in a dissolution of marriage must contain specific findings of value for each significant asset and designate each asset as marital or nonm…
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 intelligence“Because the final judgment contains no specific findings regarding the value of each significant asset and further fails to include a marital/nonmarital designation for each asset, as required by section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), we are not able to review the fairness of the asset distribution.”
Court's explanation for reversal based on inadequate trial court findings
Cynthia Sevor appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's distribution of marital assets. The record indicated…
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
PER CURIAM.
Cynthia Sevor appeals from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing on appeal that the trial court made an inequitable distribution of the marital assets. Because the final judgment contains no specific findings regarding the value of each significant asset and further fails to include a marital/nonmarital designation for each asset, as required by section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), we are not able to review the fairness of the asset distribution. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment, except as to the dissolution of the marital bond, and remand the case to the trial court to make the requi site findings. See Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
It also appears from the record that the wife may have been entitled to some portion of the personal injury settlement received as a result of Eugene Sevor’s accident on June 23, 1987, in which she had a claim for loss of consortium.1 The trial court is directed to revisit this issue on remand and include a finding in the final judgment relative to the claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . We do not find by this observation that the wife was so entitled; we leave that determination to the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Valentine v. van Sickle, 42 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…s the Husband’s personal injury settlement qualified as a nonmarital asset upon its receipt. See Mazzorana v. Mazzorana, 703 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (treating the wife’s personal injury award as a nonmari-tal asset); cf. Sevor v. Sevor, 627 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (directing trial court to revisit the issue of whether the wife would be entitled to some portion of the husband’s personal injury settlement for loss of consortium).6 As to the titling of the account in joint ownership, we…
-
Becker v. Becker, 639 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…id ways a spouse can contribute to a marital relationship. And, there well may be some in this case that occur to this trial judge, which justify his ultimate determination in this ease. Let’s wait and see what he says. . See, e.g., Sevor v. Sevor, 627 So. 2d 609 (Fla.5th DCA 1993); Pearce v. Pearce, 626 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Cortez v. Cortez, 625 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); McMonagle v. McMo-nagle, 617 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bussey…
Authorities Cited
- Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)