JOHN MARZULLI, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …Husband deprived Wife of any opportunity to avoid the very judgments that may now be deemed marital liabilities. Regardless, the parties and we agree that reversal is required for the trial court to explain its reasoning. See Pomeranz v. Pomeranz, 901 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (providing that “an equitable distribution plan requires ‘specific written findings of fact’ including ‘findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court’s rationale for the distribution of m…
• Yovall Augoshe v. Lehman, 962 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
  …n view of the abuse of discretion standard that we are obliged to apply in our review of this issue, we cannot conclude, based on this record, that no reasonable person would have reached this decision based on these facts. See Pomeranz v. Pomeranz, 901 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Since we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the equitable distribution contained in the amended final judgment. [*404] In conclusion, we affirm the trial court’s determination regarding the am…
• Guobaitis v. Sherrer, 18 So. 3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
  …division of marital assets is presumptively proper under section 61.075 and thus an unequal distribution must be justified by findings made by the court.” Porzio v. Porzio, 760 So. 2d 1075, 1077-78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). See also Pomeranz v. Pomeranz, 901 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (providing that “an equitable distribution plan requires ‘specific written findings of fact’ including ‘findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court’s rationale for the distribution of m…

Authorities Cited

• Washington v. State, 895 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)