MORRIS R. MATHIEU, APPELLANT,
v.
KRIS MATHIEU N/K/A KRIS BADZINSKI, 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.
Morris Mathieu appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage, claiming inadequate findings of fact among five alleged errors. The Fifth District affirmed, holding that claims of inadequate findings in dissolution cases must be raised in a motion for rehearing or are waived on appeal.
A party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing. The lack of adequate findings will be treated as unpreserved error unless previously raised with the trial court.
[1] A party generally cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings of fact in a dissolution of marriage case unless the alleged defect was first brought to the trial c…
[2] Failure to raise the inadequacy of factual findings in a motion for rehearing typically results in the error being treated as unpreserved for appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 Third District Court of Appeal has taken the approach that a party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing.”
Establishes the legal rule adopted by the Fifth District requiring parties to raise inadequate findings at the trial court level
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the trial court issued a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, Mathieu's experienced trial counsel filed a detailed motion for rehearing ra…
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the appeal of an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband, Morris Mathieu [“Math-ieu”], has raised five claims of reversible error in the final judgment. A significant theme running throughout is that inadequate findings of fact were, made by the trial court. We disagree. because the required findings are either express or apparent within the judgment, and our review is not hampered.
After the trial court issued its judgment below, Mathieu’s trial counsel, an experienced marital lawyer, filed a detailed motion for rehearing, raising multiple issues of law and asserting that several of the court’s findings were not supported by the evidence at trial. Notably, however, the only issue about which the inadequacy of the court’s findings was raised was attorney’s fees.
It commonly happens in appeals from final judgments in dissolution of marriage cases that the appellant will urge reversible error based on inadequate findings of fact, yet the claim of inadequate findings is often not brought to the attention of the trial court by way of a motion for rehearing. Rather than bring the fact-finding defect to the trial court at the time the' decision is made so that the same judge who decided the case can correct the omission while the case is fresh in his mind, often the defect is not ascertained on appeal until many months have elapsed. At best, the trial court has to recall facts that have receded in memory. At worst, the case may land in the lap of a different judge, who has to start all over. The Third District Court of Appeal has taken the approach that a party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court’s attention in a motion for rehearing. Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). This strikes us as sensible and we adopt this' approach. In the usual case, we will treat the lack of adequate findings as an unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court’s attention.1
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W, GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Our decision is subject to one caveat: Since the principal reason for findings of fact in these cases is to allow for meaningful appellate review in this very important area of the law, if the court determines on its own that its review is hampered, we may, at our discretion, send the case back for findings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…in footnote 1, the majority notes a possible issue as to whether the lack of adequate findings was properly preserved for review. Owens v. Owens, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2095, — So. 2d -, 2007 WL 2456208 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 31, 2007), Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), discuss the use of motions for rehearing to bring to the trial court’s attention its failure to make adequate findings, thereby preserving the error for appellate re…
-
Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…t, however, never challenged the adequacy of the findings in a motion for rehearing or by any other means available in the trial court. We, therefore, determine that this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 909 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2005) (treating lack of adequate findings as unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court’s attention); see also Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (ho…
-
Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…e. Alternatively, Husband contends that Wife failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, because she did not argue on rehearing the lack of factual findings regarding this asset. In support of his position, Husband cites Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), which states that “a party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court’s attention in a motion for rehearing.” Id. at 741. The Third District…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broadfoot v. Rocio E. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)