JOHN R. COOK, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIE A. COOK, 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 equitable distribution case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a final divorce judgment because the trial court failed to identify all marital debts as required by statute, rendering appellate review impossible. The court remanded for the trial court to make proper findings regarding the identification and value of all marital liabilities.
The court held that the trial court's failure to identify all marital debts and their values constitutes reversible error requiring remand, as it renders appellate review impossible. The court declined to address the attorney's fees issue as premature pending remand, instructing the trial court to consider the request after determining the amount and nature of debt ultimately assigned to appellant.
[1] A trial court must identify and make findings as to all marital assets and liabilities subject to equitable distribution.
[2] Failure to identify the nature, value, and distribution of all marital assets and liabilities prevents meaningful appellate review.
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“The final judgment in this case fails to identify all of the marital debts, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) (distribution of all marital liabilities shall include specific written findings of fact as to the identification of the liabilities).”
Establishes the statutory requirement for identification of marital liabilities and identifies the trial court's failure to comply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is a divorce case involving the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities between John R. Cook and Julie A. Cook. The trial court …
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment in this case fails to identify all of the marital debts, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) (distribution of all marital liabilities shall include specific written findings of fact as to the identification of the liabilities). The failure to identify the nature of the liabilities and a value therefor renders this court powerless to engage in meaningful appellate review and constitutes reversible error. Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (failure to make 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); Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (same). We reverse the equitable distribution and remand to the trial court to make the findings required by section 61.075. If, after making the appropriate findings, the trial court determines that the original asset and liability allocation does not comport with its stated intent to award Appellant a greater portion of the marital assets, the court is free to correct the distribution.
Appellant also contends that the trial court erred by failing to require the Appellee to contribute toward his attorney’s fees as her income is approximately 2½ times greater than his and she has almost no debt. While this argument may have merit, it is premature for this court to address this point without knowing the amount and nature of the debt ultimately assigned to the Appellant. On remand, the trial court should consider Appellant’s request.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Staffney v. State, 826 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…g, 751 So. 2d at 621. Further, “sophisticated” is defined as “ ‘having acquired worldly knowledge or refinement; lacking natural simplicity or naiveté.’ ” Id. (citing AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LaNguage (1981)). In State v. Merritt, 714 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the court upheld the downward departure sentence “finding that the almost 16-year old victim did not need to be instructed on how or what sex acts to perform; the defendant was nervous and unable to attain an erection, and his a…
-
State v. Noe Salgado, 948 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981))). Thus, a crime is committed in an unsophisticated manner when the acts constituting the crime are “artless, simple and not refined.” Staffney, 826 So. 2d at 509 (quoting State v. Merritt, 714 So. 2d 1158, 1154 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). The following cases are instructive. In Staffney, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a downward departure for sexual battery, finding that there was insufficient competent substantial evidence to support t…
-
Barabas v. Barabas, 923 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…determination of valuation dates is squarely within the trial court’s discretion). The court’s failure to identify the marital assets and debts and their value constitutes reversible error and requires remand for appropriate findings. Cook v. Cook, 714 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Upon remand, the trial court should make the requisite written findings that [*591] identify the parties’ marital assets and liabilities 4 and value them as of an appropriate date. The court should take additional evidenc…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brock v. Newman Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)