ELIZABETE PINHO MCLEOD, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH LARRY MCLEOD, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's final judgment on equitable distribution grounds because the trial court failed to identify and make findings regarding specific marital assets (Gold Kist proceeds totaling approximately $13,000) and liabilities (medical expenses) that were presented in evidence but not addressed in the judgment.
The trial court erred by failing to identify and make findings as to all marital assets and liabilities as required by section 61.075, Florida Statutes. The failure to do so rendered appellate review impossible and required reversal and remand for the trial court to make proper findings and reconsider the entire equitable distribution scheme.
[1] A trial court must identify and make findings as to all marital assets and liabilities subject to equitable distribution.
[2] Failure to identify the nature and value of marital assets and liabilities prevents meaningful appellate review of equitable distribution.
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“the trial court is required to identify and distribute all marital assets 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.”
Establishes the trial court's statutory duty under section 61.075 and the consequence of failing to do so—inability to conduct appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabete Pinho McLeod and Kenneth Larry McLeod were divorced by trial court judgment. Evidence was introduced regarding approximately $13,000 in Gold…
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.
Elizabete Pinho McLeod, the former wife, challenges a final judgment of dissolution of marriage on several grounds. Because the trial court failed to identify and make findings as to assets and liabilities the wife claims were subject to equita ble distribution, we reverse the judgment with respect to distribution provisions.
Among other arguments, the former wife argues that the trial court erred in failing to find that proceeds received by-Kenneth Larry McLeod, the former husband, from Gold Kist totaling approximately $13,000 were marital assets and that medical expenses incurred by the former wife were marital liabilities. The trial court’s judgment contains no reference to these items, though there was testimony and other evidence introduced regarding these matters, and the former husband has not denied that the items are part of the marital estate and therefore subject to distribution. Pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2002), the trial court is required to identify and distribute all marital assets 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 to all assets and liabilities as required by section 61.075. On remand, after making the appropriate findings, the trial court shall revisit the equitable distribution scheme in its entirety. Because a significant period of time has elapsed since the evidentiary portion of the proceedings below has closed, the trial court is permitted to take additional evidence concerning the value of the entire marital estate at the time of remand so as to allow an equitable distribution. See Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d at 1285 (“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 also Sharon v. Sharon, 862 So. 2d 789, 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Packard v. Packard, 697 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Buonavolonta v. Buonavolonta, 846 So. 2d 649, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sharon v. Sharon, 862 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Burke v. Burke, 864 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Gaetani-Slade v. Slade, 852 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Packard v. Packard, 697 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Buonavolonta v. Buonavolonta, 846 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Barnes v. State, 842 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- ICE v. ICE, 842 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)