NOVA BURNS BRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
ESAU BRIGHT, JR., 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the former wife challenges the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony and attorney fees to her 67-year-old legally blind husband, and disputes the distribution of marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the alimony and attorney fees awards but vacated and remanded the asset distribution decision due to lack of explanation in the judgment.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony and attorney fees to the former husband, and those awards are affirmed. However, the asset distribution decision is vacated and remanded because the trial court failed to provide sufficient explanation for what appears to be an unequal distribution, and the court must provide the factual findings required by statute on remand.
[1] A party seeking to demonstrate reversible error on appeal bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness afforded to a trial court's judgment.
[2] The absence of a trial transcript precludes appellate review of evidentiary claims.
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“The trial court's judgment comes here clothed in a presumption of correctness, and it is the former wife's burden to demonstrate reversible error.”
Establishes the standard of review and burden on the appellant in challenging family law judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves the dissolution of marriage between Nova Burns Bright (former wife/appellant) and Esau Bright, Jr. (former husband/appellee). The hu…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She complains about the trial court’s decision to award permanent periodic alimony and attorney fees to her 67-year-old legally blind husband, and about the distribution of the parties’ two' principal marital assets, which she asserts was unequal.
The record contains no transcript of the final hearing, because no court reporter was present.
The trial court’s judgment comes here clothed in a presumption of correctness, and it is the former wife’s burden to demonstrate reversible error. Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The absence of a transcript precludes intelligent review of any of the former wife’s evidentiary claims. From the face of the final judgment, we are unable to say that the trial court’s rulings regarding alimony and attorney fees constituted an abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, we affirm those awards.
However, we cannot discern from the final judgment why the trial court apparently unequally distributed the parties’ two principal marital assets — the home and the former wife’s pension — in a way that seems to favor the former husband.
Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the final judgment which distributes those assets and remand for further consideration of that issue pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1995).
The trial court shall include in its decision on remand the factual findings mandated by subsection (3) of that statute, so that intelligent appellate review will be possible.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WOLF, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Eneida Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)