PATRICIA A. FARLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
EMANUEL DEAN FARLEY, 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 trial court erred by failing to make statutorily required findings to support its alimony award and by failing to consider the tax implications of that award.
[1] A trial court's failure to make statutorily required findings to support an award of alimony constitutes reversible error.
[2] A trial court must consider all relevant economic factors enumerated in section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes, when determining a proper award of alimony.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing the trial court erred in its alimony award. The parties had partially settled…
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.
PARKER, Judge.
Patricia A. Farley (the wife) appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage from Emanuel Dean Farley (the husband). The wife correctly contends that the trial court erred in failing to make statutorily required findings to support its award of alimony and in failing to consider the evidence which was presented concerning tax implications of the alimony award. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse.
Through mediation the parties were able to reach a partial settlement in this case. The issues which were reserved for trial court resolution were (1) the amount of permanent alimony the husband should pay to the wife, (2) the amount of life insurance the husband should provide the wife for the purpose of securing payment of his alimony obligation, and (3) whether the wife was entitled to payment of her attorney’s fees, suit money, and court costs.
Section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides as follows:
In determining a proper award of alimony or maintenance, the court shall consider all relevant economic factors, including but not limited to:
(a) The standard of living established during the marriage.
(b) The duration of the marriage.
(c) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.
(d) The financial resources of each party, the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.
(e) When applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.
(f) The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party.
(g) All sources of income available to either party.
The court may consider any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.
Failure to include findings of fact as required by section 61.08 is reversible error. Milo v. Milo, 718 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So. 2d 624, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In this case, the final judgment does not contain any findings regarding factors (a) to (f) as enumerated in section 61.08(2). In fact, the final judgment is simply a recitation of the court’s legal findings without any supporting findings of fact. Without such findings, it is impossible for this court to conduct an adequate review of the alimony award.
The wife also argues that the trial court erred in failing to consider the tax implications of the alimony award. It is error for the trial court to fail to consider tax implications of an alimony award when such evidence is presented. Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1320, 1321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see Lutgert v. Lutgert, 362 So. 2d 58, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). While the trial court may have considered the tax implications in awarding alimony in this case, it is impossible to so determine on the face of the final judgment. Accordingly, upon remand we direct the trial court to consider the tax implications of the alimony award.
The wife’s third argument is that the trial court erred in awarding her alimony which amounted to only 19% of the parties’ income. Because the record does not contain findings of fact regarding the section 61.08(2) alimony factors, it is impossible to determine whether the trial court’s award of alimony was error. The final judgment of dissolution did not state the husband’s income, did not address the standard of living the parties enjoyed during the marriage, and did not address the wife’s legitimate expenses postdissolution. The final judgment finds that the wife’s “base line expenses” are $3600 per month but never defines that term. While we can find numerous cases in Florida that discuss living expenses of a spouse in dissolution cases, we can find no case that discusses “base line expenses.” Because this case must be remanded to the trial court, and in hopes of sparing the parties another appeal to this court, we encourage the trial court to expand its final judgment to address these issues. This record contains a transcript of the full hearing which includes extensive testimony by two certified public accountants which should aid the court in reaching the correct alimony award.
Reversed and remanded for entry of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage containing the required statutory findings to support the award of alimony and which addresses the tax implications of the alimony award.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…[*1264] relative to the ... factors” set forth in the statute. Milo v. Milo, 718 So. 2d 848, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. “Failure to include findings of fact as required by section 61.08 is reversible error.” Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The purpose of these findings “is to assist the appellate court in providing a meaningful review.” Milo, 718 So. 2d at 344-45. As for equitable distribution, section 61.075(3)(b) requires the trial court to make specific fi…
-
Stanford R. Solomon v. Sheila A.B. Solomon, 861 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…mount of alimony it awarded. - Nor can we discern from the record how the trial court arrived at the amount it awarded. Failure to include findings of fact as required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2000), is reversible error. Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION We affirm the equitable distribm tion award in its entirety with one-, exception. We agree with the former husband’s contention that the trial court’s valuation of the marital residence is not supported b…
-
Ira Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…l judgment makes meaningful appellate review impossible and requires reversal of the wife's award of permanent alimony and lump sum alimony.”) (citations omitted); Parenteau v. Parenteau, 795 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). . See Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) (requiring the trial court to include findings of fact in the final judgment relative to the factors enumerated in section 61.08(2)); Smith v. Smith, 689 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Rausch v. Ra…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lou Jean Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- McHOME v. State, 718 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Lutgert v. Lutgert, 362 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)