KEITH J. ICE, APPELLANT,
v.
DENISE H. ICE, 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.
In this family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a dissolution of marriage judgment because the trial court failed to identify and designate responsibility for a $78,681 marital liability (shareholders' loan) in its equitable distribution analysis, violating section 61.075(3)(c). The court also reversed the imputation of $25,000 income to the former wife, finding insufficient basis for such imputation.
The trial court's failure to identify the $78,681 shareholders' loan as a marital liability and designate which spouse would be responsible for it constitutes reversible error requiring remand. Additionally, the trial court erred in imputing $25,000 in salary to the former wife without sufficient evidence of actual earnings or employment history.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to identify all marital liabilities and designate responsibility for each, as required by statute.
[2] An appellate court must remand a case for appropriate findings when a trial court fails to sufficiently identify and value marital assets and debts.
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“Pursuant to section 61.075(3)(c), a trial court must identify the marital liabilities and designate which spouse shall be responsible for each.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that the trial court failed to meet in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced and the trial court valued the family corporation at $103,000 based on the former wife's expert testimony. This valuation in…
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 Marital Liabilities cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former husband appeals the trial court’s equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fee awards in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The former wife cross-appeals the trial court’s imputation of income to her in the amount of $25,000. We reverse and remand with instructions.
The final judgment in this case fails to identify all of the parties’ marital liabilities, contrary to the requirements of section 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1997).
Pursuant to section 61.075(3)(c), a trial court must identify the marital liabilities and designate which spouse shall be responsible for each. Here, the trial court, for purposes of equitable distribution, valued the family corporation at $103,000, based upon the former wife’s expert’s testimony. This $103,000 valuation included as a corporate asset the $78,681 shareholders’ loan, which the parties had taken out from the corporation while the marriage was still intact.
However, while the trial court valued the corporation at $103,000, it failed to identify the loan as a marital liability and designate which spouse would be responsible for such. The failure to identify the nature and value of the marital liabilities constitutes reversible error and renders this Court powerless to engage in meaningful appellate review. See Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that the failure to make sufficient findings regarding the value of property and identification of marital assets and debts constitutes reversible error and requires remand for appropriate findings to be made); see also Sayegh v. Sayegh, 777 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution and remand to the trial court to make the necessary findings in accordance with section 61.075(3)(c).
See Cook v. Cook, 714 So. 2d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Because the trial court is at liberty to adjust the overall equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fee awards, we decline to address appellant’s other arguments on appeal. As to the issue on cross-appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred in imputing a $25,000 salary to appellee. See Stewart v. Rich, 664 So. 2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that notwithstanding the fact that the former wife had earned a law degree, the trial court erred in imputing income to the former wife, as her degree had not translated into actual employment and income at the time of the final hearing, and as the former wife had absolutely no history of earnings and no track record).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 847 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). . Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA, Apr.9, 2003) (failure to make express findings regarding the amount and source of the income imputed to mother for child support purposes warranted reversal); Ice v. Ice, 842 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA, Apr.8, 2003) (trial court erred in imputing a $25,000 salary to former wife). . § 61.16, Fla. Stat. (in determining whether to make attorney’s fees and costs awards at the appellate level, the court shall primarily consider the relat…
-
Peacock v. Peacock, 879 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ting a marital couple’s liabilities in a dissolution action requires the trial court to identify them. The second step requires the court to designate them as either marital or non-marital. The third step is to equitably distribute them. Ice v. Ice, 842 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The general rule requires marital property to be distributed equally. Krafchuk v. Krafchuk, 804 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Nevertheless, “there can be unequal distribution if justifications for disparity exist.” Id. at 380…
-
Elizabete Pinho McLEOD v. McLEOD, 915 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…and liabilities. The failure to identify the nature of all of the assets and liabilities and to establish a value for and distribute each marital asset and liability renders this court powerless to engage in meaningful appellate review. Ice v. Ice, 842 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Gaetani-Slade v. Slade, 852 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution and remand to the trial court to make the findings as…
Authorities Cited
- Bart L. Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Stewart v. Rich, 664 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 709 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- 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)
- Sayegh v. Sayegh, 777 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)