MARTIN G. CHESTNUTT, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA D. CHESTNUTT, 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.
The court held that the final judgment of dissolution of marriage must be remanded because it lacked specific findings of fact regarding marital and nonmarital assets and attorney's fees.
The appellant appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The appellate record lacked a transcript of the final hearing, limiting review to …
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.
GREEN, Judge.
The appellant, Martin G. Chestnutt, appeals the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We note that the record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the final hearing. Therefore, only if an error is apparent on the face of the final judgment will a reversal be required. See Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Although the appellant raises several points on appeal, we find only two errors apparent on the face of the final judgment. The appellant first contends that the trial judge erred in failing to make specific findings of fact identifying the parties’ marital and nonmarital assets as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1997). The appellee agrees that no such findings were made by the trial court, and therefore, we remand for the trial court to make the proper findings. If the trial court alters the distribution of any assets, all other financial aspects of the judgment must likewise be reviewed. See Mead v. Mead, 726 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
The other deficiency on the face of the judgment pertains to the award of attorney fees to the appellee. There is no specific finding concerning the appellee’s attorney’s hourly rate and the number of hours reasonably expended by him as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985). The record contains the fee affidavit filed by appellee’s attorney; however, the existence of this affidavit does not forego the necessity of a sufficient reference in the final judgment. See Kincart v. Kincart, 572 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
We therefore affirm the final judgment with the aforementioned exceptions and note that in the event the trial court finds it necessary to alter the disposition of marital and nonmarital assets, then all financial considerations must be readdressed.
Affirmed in part; remanded in part.
FULMER, A.C.J., NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…and to the trial court to correct its error. On remand, if the trial court finds a violation of probation, it shall enter a formal, written order of violation and shall not use a Memo of Sentence as the disposi-tive document. See Rebollar v. State, 752 So. 2d 1287, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Wagner v. State, 744 So. 2d 1155, 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Grantham, 735 So. 2d at 526. Remanded with directions. GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.…
-
Elyse Marie Tramontano Walker v. Walker, 827 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ed the loan proceeds to pay his own litigation expenses, treating the loans as marital effectively awarded him half of those expenses. Yet the trial court took no evidence nor made any findings as to their reasonableness. See Chestnutt v. Chestnutt, 752 So. 2d 1287, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that circuit court must make specific findings concerning the attorney hours expended and the reasonableness of fees). Without such factual findings, we cannot ascertain whether the circuit court abused its discret…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Eneida Chirino v. Chirino, 710 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Collins v. Moore, 726 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Kincart v. Kincart, 572 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)