DALE ALLAN ROGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANA BAGGETT ROGERS, 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 family law appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage because the judgment contained multiple defects, including failure to make required findings of fact for parental responsibility, child support deviation, and attorney's fees awards.
The court reversed and remanded the final judgment because it was defective in five respects: the sole parental responsibility award lacked required best interests findings; the marital debt award to the husband lacked supporting findings; the health insurance obligation was not capped; the attorney's fees award lacked basis in the record; and the child support amount appeared to deviate from guidelines without supporting written findings.
[1] An award of sole parental responsibility requires a finding that it is in the child's best interests.
[2] An award of all marital debts to one party must be supported by specific findings in the judgment.
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“Because the final judgment is defective in several respects and because this court is committed to reversing deficient judgments in dissolution cases, even if there is no objection below or on appeal, we reverse.”
Establishes the court's strict standard for reviewing dissolution judgments and commitment to correcting defects regardless of whether parties objected.
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 had a short marriage with one child aged 2, modest incomes, few assets, and some debt. The husband represented himself, failed to pay cour…
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
PER CURIAM.
We sua, sponte withdraw our earlier opinion and substitute the following corrected opinion in its stead:
This is the appeal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The marriage was of short duration, there are few assets, some debt and the parties’ incomes are modest. The parties have one child, aged 2.
In the court below, the wife had counsel; the husband represented himself. He failed to pay court-awarded temporary support, quit his job and failed to appear on the scheduled trial date. A hearing was held and a final judgment of dissolution entered. The husband was subsequently apprehended and found in contempt for failing to meet his support obligations. Husband has now hired counsel and appealed the final judgment. He raises several issues, mostly dealing with defects in the final judgment, which the record reflects was drafted by counsel for the wife.1 Because the final judgment is defective in several respects and because this court is committed to reversing deficient judgments in dissolution cases, even if there is no objection below or on appeal,2 we reverse.
The following are the defects that must be corrected: (1) an award of sole parental responsibility requires a “best interests” finding, Braman v. Braman, 602 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); (2) if there is any basis to award the husband all marital debts, it must be supported by findings, Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); (3) the obligation to provide health insurance must be capped in the final judgment, Young v. Young, 600 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1992); (4) there is no basis in the final judgment for the attorney’s fees awarded;3 and (5) the basis for the amount of child support awarded is unclear, but it appears to deviate from the guidelines and, if so, must be supported by written findings. Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).4
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . On appeal, there has been no appearance for the wife.
. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
. Given that no objection was made to the proof offered at trial, the lower court may need to conduct a hearing on fees in order to prepare a proper order. .If wife’s counsel has already charged his client for drafting and obtaining entry of a proper final judgment, no additional fees for this purpose should be necessary.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paul v. Paul, 648 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…or support, this court has held in a number of cases that the trial judge must set a specific dollar amount for medical insurance premiums and uncovered medical expenses. See Kaminski v. Kaminski 637 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Rogers v. Rogers, 632 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Young v. Young, 600 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Szemborski v. Szemborski 530 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). On remand, the court should first view the split of the dental/medical insurance pension benefit as part of the f…
-
Stewart v. Stewart, 696 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…culate the guidelines amount, treating the tax payments as deductible to reach the former husband’s net income, or if the trial court elects to deviate from that amount, to provide reasons for the deviation beyond the 5% range. See Rogers v. Rogers, 632 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). On remand, the trial court should also have been authorized to reconsider the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the former wife, for the same reasons. . See Brock v…
-
Wasserman v. Wasserman, 651 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…he former husband that the trial court erred in assigning all of the marital liabilities to the former husband without setting forth reasons for the unequal division of debt. See Upton v. Upton, 642 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Rogers v. Rogers, 632 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We also note that the award of alimony appears excessive based on the current distribution scheme and the parties’ net incomes. However, we do not reach the issue of whether the present alimony award constitutes an abuse of th…
Authorities Cited
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Winters v. Nadya Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Young v. Young, 600 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Braman v. Braman, 602 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)