DONALD JOSEPH ROGOZINSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS LEE ROGOZINSKI, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's distribution of marital assets but reversed and remanded due to the trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact identifying and allocating marital and non-marital liabilities as required by statute.
A trial court must make specific findings of fact identifying marital and non-marital liabilities and designating which spouse is responsible for each, as required by section 61.075(3).
[1] A trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact identifying marital and non-marital liabilities and designating responsibility for each liability, as required b…
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 intelligenceFollowing dissolution of marriage, the former husband appealed the trial court's distribution of marital assets, including an alarm monitoring busines…
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 Marital Liabilities cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following dissolution of marriage, Former Husband appeals the trial court’s distribution of marital assets, raising six issues on appeal. We affirm the three issues concerning the trial court’s equitable distribution of assets of Former Husband’s alarm monitoring business, and we affirm the trial court’s equitable distribution of personal property and contents of a garage workshop without further discussion. Likewise, we affirm the trial court’s equitable distribution of the value of the garage workshop.
We find error, however, in the trial court’s failure to make specific findings of fact identifying marital and non-marital liabilities, as required by section 61.075(3). Failure to make these specific findings requires remand to the trial court for specific findings of marital and non-marital liabilities and designating which spouse shall be responsible for each liability, in accordance with section 61.075(3). Prom v. Prom, 589 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
We therefore remand the entire case to the trial court to make such revisions to the equitable distribution as may be necessary upon designating marital and non-marital liabilities between the parties.
BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Prom v. Prom, 589 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Boone v. Ernie Mastroianni, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Neville Roy Lawrence v. Lourine Reynolds Lawrence, 709 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)