THOMAS EDWARD BRINGEDAHL, JR., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
TERI L. BRINGEDAHL, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Trial court's dissolution judgment was affirmed, but its alimony and property division awards were reversed and remanded because the court failed to make required factual findings under Florida Statutes sections 61.075(3) and 61.08(1) and did not determine whether the wife could achieve a comparable standard of living after rehabilitation.
A trial court must make specific factual findings supporting alimony awards and must determine whether a spouse has the potential capacity to maintain a comparable standard of living after rehabilitation.
[1] Trial courts awarding alimony must make factual findings complying with Florida Statutes sections 61.075(3) and 61.08(1) and must determine whether the recipient spouse h…
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 intelligenceThe trial court granted a judgment of dissolution, distributed assets, and awarded both rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony to the wife with…
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 Property Division cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The trial judge in the instant case granted a judgment of dissolution, distributed assets of the parties, and awarded rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony. Unfortunately, the court did not comply with either section 61.075(3) or section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1995) in respect to the requirement of factual findings. See, e.g., Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) and Woodard v. Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Nor did the trial court make any apparent determination as to whether the wife would have the potential capacity, after rehabilitation, to maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. See Benters v. Benters, 655 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), appeal after remand, 683 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of dissolution but otherwise reverse the judgment entered below and remand for reconsideration by the trial court. If necessary the trial court may take additional evidence in order to make the appropriate findings in support of its determinations in regard to alimony, support and equitable division of property.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
W. SHARP, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Woodard v. Jaymie Sands Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Heidelburg v. State, 622 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Benters v. Benters, 655 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Cole v. State, 683 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)