GLENN E. REYES, APPELLANT,
v.
NEVIS REYES, 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 a marriage dissolution appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's child custody decision but reversed and remanded regarding property division and related economic provisions. The trial court improperly ordered sale and partition of the marital home without a pleading seeking such relief, and failed to properly analyze the wife's potential marital interest in the husband's premarital property.
The trial court erred in ordering partition of the property because no pleading sought such relief, nor was it requested at trial or acquiesced to. On remand, the trial court must consider whether marital funds were used to service the mortgage, whether improvements were made with marital funds, and whether property appreciation occurred during the marriage to determine the extent of the wife's marital interest.
[1] A trial court may not order the partition of a marital home absent a pleading seeking such relief or a clear indication of acquiescence at trial.
[2] The enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting from marital efforts or funds are considered marital assets.
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“We conclude the trial court erred in ordering eventual partition of the property, because there was no pleading seeking such relief nor was such request made at trial or acquiesced in.”
Establishes the primary error: partition cannot be ordered absent proper pleading or request.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband purchased a home before marriage, which served as the family residence both before and during the marriage. The trial court ordered eventu…
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 Partition Of Marital Home cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from final judgment in a marriage dissolution case, we affirm the trial court’s decision regarding child custody, but reverse and remand as to all other matters raised on appeal.
In its final judgment of dissolution of marriage the trial court ordered ultimate sale and partition of the home in which the former spouses resided. The home, which had been purchased by the husband prior to the marriage, served as the parties’ and their children’s residence for some years from the time of purchase before they became legally married, as well as during the marriage. We conclude the trial court erred in ordering eventual partition of the property, because there was no pleading seeking such relief nor was such request made at trial or acquiesced in. See Zeller v. Zeller, 396 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
On remand, because the former wife very likely acquired a marital interest in the husband’s premarital property, the trial court should consider whether the mortgage was serviced with marital funds, if there were perhaps improvements made with marital funds, and whether the value of the home may have appreciated during thé marriage. Section 61.075(5)(a) 2 includes under marital assets “[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon' of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both.” This statute states that in a contested dissolution action the distribution of all marital assets and liabilities whether equal or unequal shall include written findings of fact as to identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests, identification of marital assets including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse is to get each asset, and additional. stated elements. § 61.075(3). Such written findings are also needed if an appellate court is to carry on a meaningful review. See, e.g., Dyson v. Dyson, 597 So. 2d 320, 324-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Because the errors in the final judgment regarding transfer of title to residence and ultimate partition may have affected the other provisions in the judgment regarding the residence of appellee and the youngest child, as well as alimony and child support, we remand for reconsideration of all the awards. Inasmuch as property, alimony, child support and other economic provisions of a marriage dissolution judgment are intertwined, see, e.g., Ryland v. Ryland, 605 So. 2d 138, 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Mollnow v. Mollnow, 530 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), we reverse as to all such provisions and remand for revisitation by the trial court and for new determinations which are consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
DELL, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…f significant assets.’” Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (1995)). Written findings are necessary for an appellate court to conduct a meaningful review of the final judgment. Reyes v. Reyes, 714 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Even when no trial transcript is provided to the reviewing court, “[fjailure to make sufficient findings regarding value of property and identification of marital assets and debts constitutes reversible error and requires r…
-
Dorsett v. Granvill Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…e sufficient findings regarding value of property and identification of marital assets and debts constitutes reversible error and requires remand for appropriate findings to be made.” Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So. 2d 732, 732; see, e.g., Reyes v. Reyes, 714 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Therefore, we also remand this matter to the trial court to make the written findings § 61.075(3)(b) requires for purposes of facilitating meaningful review. STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur. . As we explain below, however, th…
-
Escudero v. Escudero, 739 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…des that a 50-50 distribution is to be made. . § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491, 493 (Fla.1991); Herrera v. Herrera, 673 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). .§ 61.075(1) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Reyes v. Reyes, 714 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Herrera v. Herrera, 673 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). . § 61.075(1)0); Beers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Murray v. Murray, 636 So. 2d 536, 538 (F…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dyson v. Dyson, 597 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Zeller v. Zeller, 396 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Mollnow v. Mollnow, 530 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Brayton v. State, 605 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)