DONALD W. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
BILLIE J. WILLIAMS, 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.
Trial court's property distribution award reversed for lack of meaningful findings identifying and valuing marital assets and liabilities, though alimony entitlement affirmed pending reconsideration after remand.
A trial court must provide sufficient findings identifying and valuing all marital assets and liabilities to support an equitable distribution award.
[1] A trial court must provide sufficient written findings identifying and valuing all marital assets and liabilities to support an equitable distribution award, and concluso…
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 intelligence“the personal property of the parties has been exchanged except for the two vehicles, the record demonstrates that there were several matters to be dealt with in distributing the parties' personal property which were not addressed by the court”
Court's analysis of trial court's inadequate findings regarding property distribution
In a divorce proceeding, the trial court awarded alimony and distributed property but failed to address tangible personal property, 401(K) accounts, f…
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 Equitable Distribution Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal: Whether the trial court erred in its award of alimony, and whether the trial court erred by failing to identify and value the marital assets and liabilities of the parties. We find that the trial court’s failure to provide any meaningful findings to support the distribution of the parties’ property requires reversal. Athough the court made the statement that the personal property of the parties has been exchanged except for the two vehicles, the record demonstrates that there were several matters to be dealt with in distributing the parties’ personal property which were not addressed by the court: tangible personal property, each parties’ 401(K), four vehicles, and the indebtedness of both parties. The trial court’s lack of findings has made our review of appellant’s second issue impossible. See Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Viera v. Viera, 698 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
We remand for the trial court to reconsider the equitable distribution of property. We affirm as to appellee’s entitlement to alimony, but after reconsideration of the equitable distribution scheme, the amount of the award of alimony may also be reconsidered. See Kazymirczuk v. Kazymirczuk, 709 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court is directed to provide sufficient findings to support any findings and awards made pursuant to the proceedings on remand.
MINER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ondina Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 801 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ly and succinctly held, it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss a petition for failing to comply with the requirements of section 57.085 without first affording to the party an opportunity to correct the deficiencies.”); see also Bandy v. Sheffield, 751 So. 2d 164, 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Masiello v. Moore, 739 So. 2d 1196, 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Marquart v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 701 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., Concur.…
-
Vanderberg v. Moore, 765 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…AM. The trial court should not have dismissed appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus without specifying which documents appellant failed to supply in his previous filings under section 57.085(7), Florida Statutes (1997). See Bandy v. Sheffield, 751 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Gosman v. Moore, 745 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Viera v. Viera, 698 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Kazymirczuk v. Kazymirczuk, 709 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)