ELBERT L. YOUNG, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
NORMA P. YOUNG, 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.
Elbert Young appeals an alimony and pension valuation award in a divorce case, while his ex-wife cross-appeals the court's recognition of a settlement agreement. The court reverses the alimony award and pension valuation due to lack of evidentiary support and insufficient findings, but affirms the equitable distribution of assets.
The court reversed the alimony award because the general master's report contained no findings to support it. The court reversed the pension valuation because the former wife presented no evidence to support her proposed marital portion valuation. The court affirmed the equitable distribution of assets, finding that the division complied with statutory requirements regardless of any alleged settlement agreement.
[1] An alimony award is reversible error when the general master's report lacks findings to support the award and the court adopts the report without making its own findings.
[2] A court's adoption of a valuation for a marital asset is reversible error when the record demonstrates the party proposing the valuation presented no supporting evidence.
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 intelligence“The general master's report contains no findings to support the alimony award. The court's adoption of the report, without any findings, is error.”
Establishes that alimony awards must be supported by specific findings of fact, not merely incorporated from an unsupported master's report.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElbert L. Young and Norma P. Young were parties to a divorce proceeding. The general master issued a report recommending permanent periodic alimony of…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Elbert L. Young appeals an Order On Exceptions to Amended Report of General Master Dated April 10, 2001 asserting error in the court’s alimony and pension plan awards. Norma P. Young cross-appeals attacking the court’s recognition of the parties’ purported settlement agreement. We reverse on appeal and affirm on cross-appeal.
We reverse the portion of the order that awards the former wife $1200 monthly as permanent periodic alimony. The general master’s report contains no findings to support the alimony award. The court’s adoption of the report, without any findings, is error. § 61.08, Fla. Stat. (2001); Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). On remand, the court shall reconsider the issue and make appropriate findings to justify any award.
The valuation of the marital and non-marital portions of the former husband’s pension plan must also be reversed. The parties stipulated below to the present value of the pension; the sole dispute involved the value of the marital portion. The master’s valuation reiterated former wife’s counsel’s unsupported argument regarding the value of the marital portion. However, the record demonstrates that the former wife presented no evidence to support her proposed valuation. The court’s adoption of that valuation cannot be upheld in the absence of any evidence. Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). On remand, the trial court shall rehear the issue and enter a ruling supported by the evidence presented. After doing so, the court shall revisit the equitable distribution scheme as these valuations are a part thereof.
Turning to the former wife’s cross-appeal, she asserts that the court erred in upholding an alleged agreement between the parties regarding the division of certain asserts. We affirm, as the court’s division of all the parties’ assets complies with all requirements of equitable distribution. § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2001). The existence, or non-existence, of any agreement did not impact the distribution; the former wife is not arguing that there were undisclosed assets or that the distribution of the assets is inequitable. Hence, there is no ground for reversal on this basis. In any event, the trial court shall revisit the equitable distribution upon revaluation of the pension.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. Hector, 851 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ssues, save one. Because the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in freezing assets in a purported trust account without either a basis in the pleadings or the evidence, the order freezing the trust account proceeds is quashed. See Young v. Young, 816 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); City of Miami Beach v. Swedroe, 788 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Resil v. Resil, 755 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We further note that the trial court would not allow the petitioner, who was neither disrespectful nor disrup…
-
Henry v. Lyons, 226 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…9 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (recognizing that a judge sitting as a fact-finder may reject a witness’s uncontradict-ed testimony). Nevertheless, the court erred in assigning a value to an asset in the absence of any supporting evidence. See Young v. Young, 816 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (finding that court’s adoption of a valuation supported only by argument of counsel could not be upheld). As to this equitable distribution issue, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The trial court may take additi…
Authorities Cited
- S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Carole v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Vitalis v. Lesli Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Polley v. Polley, 588 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Beasley v. Serenna Ann Beasley, 717 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)