DAN GLADSTONE, A/K/A DANI GLADSTONE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
PAMELA J. GLADSTONE, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's final judgment because the order failed to include the factual findings required by Florida Statute § 61.075. The former husband appealed the equitable distribution and denial of alimony and attorney's fees, while the former wife cross-appealed regarding imputed income for alimony purposes.
The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to include the mandatory factual findings required by § 61.075, Fla. Stat. On remand, the trial court must clearly identify each asset and liability as marital or nonmarital, ascribe values, and equitably distribute them with written findings explaining its rationale. The court may also revisit issues of alimony and attorney's fees.
[1] A judgment dissolving a marriage must contain specific factual findings regarding the identification, valuation, and distribution of marital and nonmarital assets and lia…
[2] In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution of marital assets and liabilities should be equal, unless justificati…
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 distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors”
States the foundational principle that equitable distribution begins with the premise of equal distribution unless justified otherwise.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDan Gladstone and Pamela J. Gladstone were engaged in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court issued a final judgment addressing equitab…
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 Marital Asset cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband appeals the equitable distribution scheme and the trial court’s failure to award him both alimony and attorney’s fees. The former wife cross appeals, challenging the trial court’s failure to impute income to the former husband for the purpose of awarding her alimony. Because the order appealed contains none of the factual findings required by chapter 61, frustrating appellate review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in relevant part:
(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, ... the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse’s nonmarital assets and liabilities, and in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors....
(3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence.... The distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include specific written findings of fact as to the following:
(a) Clear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests;
(b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset;
(c) Identification of the marital liabilities and designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability;
(d) Any other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court’s rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities.
(7) All assets acquired and liabilities . incurred by either spouse subsequent to the date of the marriage and not specifically established as nonmarital assets or liabilities are presumed to be marital assets and liabilities.
See also § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (requiring findings of fact with regard to an award of alimony). The order appealed contains none of these factual findings, making reversal and remand necessary.
On remand, the trial court must clearly identify each of the assets and liabilities as either marital or nonmarital and ascribe a value to any marital assets and liabilities. The court should then equitably distribute the marital assets and liabilities, including any foreign assets or debts. With regard to the designation as marital or nonmarital, “[t]he burden of proof is on the spouse who wishes to show that an asset or liability acquired during the marriage is not ... marital.... ” Deas v. Deas, 592 So. 2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(citing Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1991)). The trial court may, in its discretion, take any additional evidence necessary to fulfill its obligation to make the required factual findings. In addition, the issues of alimony and attorney’s fees may be revisited.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
DELL, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…1997). Notwithstanding, “[w]ith regard to the designation as marital or non-marital, ‘[t]he burden of proof is on the spouse who wishes to show that an asset or liability acquired during the marriage is not ... marital....’” Gladstone v. Gladstone, 733 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Deas v. Deas, 592 So. 2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)); Childers v. Childers, 640 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that the owner of the asset had the burden to show whether some portion of his pension benefits…
-
Preudhomme v. Garth Bailey, 82 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…rts. Because section 61.075(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, requires the court to make clear identification of marital and non-marital assets, we reverse and remand for the court to make the necessary statutory findings. See Gladstone v. Gladstone, 733 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). With respect to alimony, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion. While the wife was not presently [*142] employed, she had exceptional skills and had considerable earning capacity. As to the court’s imp…
-
Irwin K. Chapman v. Chapman, 866 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…rom marital efforts. The burden of proof as to this issue is on the spouse who wishes to show that the asset acquired during the marriage (in Pagano the increase in value of the stock in the business) is not marital property. Gladstone v. Gladstone, 733 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Deas v. Deas, 592 So. 2d 1221 [*120] (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The husband did not carry that burden in Pagano. This narrow interpretation of Pagano is supported by Oxley v. Oxley, 695 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In Oxley, the a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1991)
- Deas v. Deas, 592 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)