KAREN MCLEAN, APPELLANT,
v.
WALLACE MCLEAN, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's amended final judgment awarding permanent alimony because the court failed to make required statutory findings and did not properly follow the appellate mandate on remand. The case illustrates the necessity of making factual findings to support alimony awards, particularly when reversing prior determinations.
The trial court failed to follow the appellate mandate because it merely converted the alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent without making the required statutory findings on the factors supporting the amount awarded. The judgment must be reversed and remanded because without proper findings, it is impossible to determine whether the trial court correctly redetermined the issues that were reversed in the first appeal.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to make appropriate factual findings when converting an alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent.
[2] A trial court must make findings on statutory factors to support an alimony award amount, even when remanding for permanent alimony.
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 trial court merely converted the alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent, without appropriate factual findings, the judgment must be reversed.”
States the core holding that the trial court's failure to make required findings on remand necessitates reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKaren McLean, the former wife, appealed an amended final judgment of dissolution. The trial court had originally awarded $2,250/month in rehabilitativ…
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 Statutory Factors For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Karen McLean, the former wife, appeals an amended final judgment of dissolution entered after the first judgment was reversed and remanded. She correctly argues that the trial court failed to follow this court’s mandate. Because the trial court merely converted the alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent, without appro priate factual findings, the judgment must be reversed.
In McLean v. McLean, 652 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court reversed a one-year award of $2250/month in rehabilitative alimony, holding that it was an abuse of discretion in light of the long-term marriage, remaining minor child, disparity in the parties’ earning abilities, and failure to make findings regarding a rehabilitative plan and goals. In addition, the trial court erred in finding that the Husband’s income was $150,-000 a year, which was only about one-third of his actual income for the previous six years. The trial court also erred in considering the costs of sending the children to college and in considering the potential investment income from conversion of an asset awarded to the Wife. On remand, the trial court was directed to award permanent alimony and to consider the issue of security for certain equalizer payments if requested.
When the case went back to the trial court, no hearing was held nor were the attorneys given an opportunity to present argument on the remanded issues. The trial court simply awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony of $2250/month without making findings on the statutory factors to show how the court arrived at this amount. Without such findings, we can only presume that the monthly sum of $2250, awarded in the first judgment, was based on the trial court’s determination of the Husband’s income, the children’s college costs, and conversion of an asset. Because the trial court’s findings on these issues were reversed, the trial court should have redetermined these issues pursuant to this corut’s opinion before setting the amount of permanent alimony. In the absence of findings, we reverse. See Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing for failure to make findings required by. section 61.08, Fla. Stat., relative to alimony award).
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McLEAN v. McLEAN, 652 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Sasnett v. Odell O. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)