JOHN ROBERT SPITULSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURA SPITULSKI, 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.
John Spitulski appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the denial of his motion for continuance and the trial court's allocation of marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the continuance but reversed and remanded on the asset distribution issue due to the trial court's failure to value the marital businesses as required by statute.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance, so that issue was affirmed. However, the trial court's failure to value the marital businesses before awarding them constituted reversible error because the trial court was required by statute to make written findings regarding equitable distribution.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which must be clear and affirmative from the record.
[2] A trial court's failure to make written findings regarding the valuation of marital assets in a dissolution judgment constitutes reversible error.
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“A motion for continuance is directed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and the denial of continuance will not be reversed unless it clearly and affirmatively appears on the record that the denial was a palpable abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for continuance motions, which is highly deferential to the trial court's discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court determined that the former wife contributed $7,000 and the former husband contributed $37,500 to th…
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 Valuation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
John Spitulski appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to Laura Spitulski. He raises two issues. The first is whether the trial judge erred in denying his motion for continuance.
A motion for continuance is directed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and the denial of continuance will not be reversed unless it clearly and affirmatively appears on the record that the denial was a palpable abuse of discretion. Smith v. State, 762 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1188 (Fla.2001); Lopez v. Lopez, 689 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Given the facts, there is no showing of an abuse of discretion in denying the motion for continuance.
We do, however, find an error in the final judgment concerning the allocation of marital assets. The trial court determined that the former wife had contributed $7,000 and the former husband had contributed $37,500 to the marital residence. The trial court gave the former husband full ownership rights in two businesses in exchange for any special equity he might assert in the marital residence. The businesses are not valued in the final judgment, however. The trial court was obliged to make written findings as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, but failed to make valuations of the marital assets. This court has held that the failure to make requisite findings regarding an equitable distribution constitutes reversible error. See Henin v. Henin, 767 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Cook v. Cook, 714 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Without such findings, meaningful appellate review is impossible.
We are unable to determine whether the trial court unequally distributed the assets. The former husband testified that his 1999 tax forms indicate that Brothers Landscaping made somewhere between $15,000 to $20,000. His financial affidavit indicates that the fair market value of Brothers Landscaping, including a vehicle, is $28,000. The former husband also testified that Spitz Racing has always operated at a loss. The trial court may have omitted valuation from the judgment because the evidence presented by the parties on this issue was so scant at trial, but some value must be ascribed. The court may either make these valuations based on the evidence presented, or, if the court chooses, a hearing can be held. See Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanislaw Matajek v. Leokadia Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ngs out of thin air.” Reddell, 899 So. 2d at 1156 (quoting Brock, 690 So. 2d at 740). The parties presented scant evidence of value, but the court ascribed a value to the Former Wife’s car based on the evidence presented. See Spitulski v. Spitulski, 816 So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The testimony was that the vehicle was over ten years old and no longer worked. The Former Husband conceded that his estimate of the car’s value was a guess and provided no evidence to support a valuation greater than the…
-
Reddell v. Reddell, 899 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…rital assets and liabilities, as of an appropriate date. Brock v. Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). A trial court’s failure to make requisite findings regarding an equitable distribution constitutes reversible error. Spitulski v. Spitulski, 816 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In the instant case, in the final judgment, no valuation was provided for the marital liabilities or assets. See Spitulski, 816 So. 2d at 1251 (reversing and remanding where the trial court was obliged to make written findings…
Authorities Cited
- Brock v. Newman Brock, 690 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 689 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Henin v. Henin, 767 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Smith v. State, 762 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Metromedia Steakhouses Co., L.P., Ltd. v. USAA Income Props., 714 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Cook v. Cook, 714 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)