DEXTER S. BURKE, APPELLANT,
v.
AMY S. BURKE, 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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the former husband challenged the trial court's classification of real property as marital assets and its failure to properly identify, value, and dispose of marital assets and liabilities. The court reversed in part, finding that while the real property designation was proper, the final judgment failed to contain sufficient findings regarding all assets and liabilities as required by Florida law.
The court found no error in the trial court's designation of the real property parcels as marital assets, but reversed and remanded because the final judgment failed to refer to all marital assets and did not adequately identify or value all marital assets and liabilities as required by Florida Statutes section 61.075(3)(b).
[1] A statement of evidence submitted on appeal must be agreed to by the parties or approved by the trial court to be considered.
[2] Absent a trial transcript, an appellate court may only reverse a final judgment if an error of law appears on the face of the judgment.
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“section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires the final judgment to contain sufficient findings regarding assets and liabilities”
Establishes the statutory requirement that appellate courts enforce regarding completeness of asset and liability findings in dissolution judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDexter S. Burke and Amy S. Burke were former spouses in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court designated certain real property parcels…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, C.J.
Dexter S. Burke, the former husband, appeals the final judgment of dissolution alleging the ti-ial court erred in (1) designating certain real property as marital assets, and (2) failing to properly identify, value, and dispose of the marital assets and liabilities. We reverse the final judgment in part.
No trial transcript was submitted in the record on appeal and the “statement of evidence” submitted by the former husband was not agreed to by the parties, nor approved of by the trial court.
Therefore, we must reject the statement for failure to comply with rule 9.200(b)(4). See Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (finding “statement of evidence” purportedly reflecting evidence presented at child custody hearing would be rejected on appeal where statement was not fully agreed to by adverse party’s counsel and had not been approved by trial court). Absent a trial transcript, we may only reverse if an error of law appears on the face of the final judgment. See generally, Lafaille v. Lafaille, 837 So. 2d 601, 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). We, therefore, find no error in the trial court’s finding that the real property parcels at issue were marital assets.
The final judgment, however, does not refer to all the marital assets, nor does it identify or value all the marital assets and liabilities. As this court has held, section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires the final judgment to contain sufficient findings regarding assets and liabilities. See, e.g., Town v. Town, 801 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“We do not decide whether the trial court erred in awarding all major assets to Former Wife; however, we reverse and remand the distribution to the trial court because of its failure to make written findings of the value of the various assets distributed.”); Green v. Green, 788 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Wetzel v. Wetzel, 671 So. 2d 234, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
We remand for reconsideration of the equitable distribution of property. If necessary, on remand the trial court may take additional evidence to make findings to support its determination. See Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Dorsett v. Granvill Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…d by the trial court. See Hughes v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 831 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(“As it is not a part of the record but merely attached to appel-lee's brief, this Court cannot review the document on appeal.”); see also Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). .But see Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (treating the lack of adequate findings as an unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial cour…
-
Connell v. Cap. City P'rs, LLC, 932 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…he $49,000 to Capital City. Because there was no transcript of the hearing below, the order on appeal may be reversed only if an error of law appears on the face of the order. See Reed v. Reed, 914 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284, 1284-85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Kanter v. Kanter, 850 So. 2d 682, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We find that the order on appeal reflects an error on its face, as it reveals a denial of due process. Specifically, the order reflects that the only motion set…
-
Schmidt v. Drew D. Schmidt, 997 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ll v. Marshall, 953 So. 2d 23, 25 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (refusing to consider the husband’s statement of the evidence under rule 9.200(b)(4) because the wife objected to it and the trial court was unable to settle and approve it); Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (same); Boylan v. Boylan, 571 So. 2d 580, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (finding that neither party’s statement of the evidence was approved by the trial court and therefore the record was not adequate for appellate review). Her…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walt v. Walt, 596 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Eddy Lafaille v. Lafaille, 837 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Rogers v. State, 788 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Wetzel v. Wetzel, 671 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Scott Donald Town v. Valerie Leigh Gunst Town, 801 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)