ANA E. SCHOMBURG, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREAS H.W. SCHOMBURG, 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.
Ana Schomburg appealed a final judgment dissolving her 24-year marriage, challenging the distribution of marital assets, residential custody arrangement, and the trial court's failure to address alimony, child support, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the equitable distribution and custody awards but reversed and remanded for the trial court to make determinations on alimony, attorney's fees, and child support.
The court affirmed the equitable distribution scheme and residential custody award, finding no abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed and remanded because the final judgment failed to address alimony and attorney's fees issues, which required the trial court to make those determinations with appropriate factual findings.
[1] A trial court must support its alimony decisions with factual findings, especially when a long-term marriage creates a presumption of permanent alimony.
[2] A final judgment of dissolution that fails to address the issue of alimony must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because of the long term of the marriage, there is an initial presumption that permanent alimony is proper.”
Establishes the legal presumption favoring alimony in long-term marriages that must be overcome by factual findings
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 married on June 3, 1977, and Mrs. Schomburg filed for dissolution in July 2001 after 24 years of marriage. At the time of filing, the…
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 Findings Of Fact For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Ana E. Schomburg appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to An-dreas H.W. Schomburg. She contends the trial court erred by making an unequal distribution of marital assets, by splitting the primary residential custody of the two minor children between the parents, by failing to make a child support determination, by failing to award her alimony or explain why she was not entitled to any, and by failing to award her attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the equitable distribution scheme and residential custody award, finding no abuse of discretion. However, because the final judgment fails to address the issues of alimony and general attorney’s fees and costs,1 we reverse and direct the court to make those determinations.
The parties were married on June 3, 1977. Mrs. Schomburg petitioned for dissolution of marriage in July 2001, and Mr. Schomburg counterpetitioned shortly thereafter. At the time of the filings the parties had been married twenty-four years. Because of the long term of the marriage, there is an initial presumption that permanent alimony is proper. Additionally, the trial court is required to support its alimony decisions with factual findings. § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); Milo v. Milo, 718 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that purpose for requiring findings of fact to support an alimony award is to assist appellate court in providing meaningful review); Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (same). This is especially necessary in the current case to overcome the presumption in favor of alimony that arose from the long term of the marriage. Because the final judgment contains no mention of the alimony issue, we remand for further proceedings. Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744, 745-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
The final judgment also did not address Mrs. Schomburg’s claim for attorney’s fees. We therefore remand with instructions that the trial court resolve this issue. Perrin, 795 So. 2d at 1024 (holding that a trial court cannot decide the issue of attorney’s fees without findings as to one spouse’s ability to pay and the other’s need).
The final judgment reserved jurisdiction to decide child support. Because we must remand on the alimony and attorney’s fees issues, in the interest of judicial economy this issue should likewise be resolved on remand with appropriate findings in the final order to facilitate complete appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur. . The trial court reserved ruling on attorney's fees and costs related to an exchange of property the parties had been ordered to do but omitted any mention of fees and costs for the dissolution proceeding itself.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…court had competent, substantial evidence before it to impute income of $40,000 to the Wife. Regarding alimony, in the context of a long-term marriage there is an initial presumption in favor of permanent, periodic alimony. Schomburg v. Schomburg, 845 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The primary factors for the trial court to consider are the needs of one spouse and the ability of the other spouse to pay. Hann v. Hann, 629 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In determining need, the trial court was oblig…
-
Austin v. Austin, 12 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…n this long-term marriage of thirty-eight years, there is an initial presumption in favor of an award of permanent alimony. See Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (marriage of over twenty-one years); Schomburg v. Schomburg, 845 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (marriage of twenty-four years). To support its alimony determination, the trial court must include specific findings of fact in the final judgment. § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); Williams v. Williams, 923 So. 2d 606, 607 (Fl…
-
Williams v. Williams, 923 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…review either the denial of alimony or the denial of attorney’s fees and costs, we reverse. A trial court must support its alimony decision by including findings of fact in the final judgment. § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Schomburg v. Schomburg, 845 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The requirement that the final judgment contain specific findings of fact is to facilitate meaningful appellate .review of the trial court’s award or denial of alimony. Milo v. Milo, 718 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); B…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- McHOME v. State, 718 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Stoutamire v. State, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)