JEAN M. PAVESE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MICHAEL P. PAVESE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 marital dissolution case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's final judgment on alimony, child support, and asset distribution because the judgment lacked required factual findings, while affirming only the dissolution of marriage and custody provisions. The court held that meaningful appellate review and equitable distribution require specific written findings of fact on income, alimony factors, rehabilitative plans, and asset classification and valuation.
The court held that the trial court's final judgment must be reversed in all respects except the dissolution of marriage and custody provisions because it failed to include required factual findings on: (1) factors pertinent to alimony awards (marital standard of living, duration of marriage, age and health, economic circumstances); (2) the rehabilitative plan and terms for rehabilitative alimony; (3) each party's income; and (4) identification, classification, valuation, and distribution of assets and liabilities.
[1] A trial court's failure to make required factual findings when awarding or denying alimony constitutes reversible error.
[2] When awarding rehabilitative alimony, a court must make specific findings regarding the rehabilitative plan, and the absence of such findings is reversible error.
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“When awarding or denying alimony, a court is required to make factual findings pertinent to the marital standard of living, the duration of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, and the economic circumstances of the parties.”
Establishes the mandatory factual findings required for alimony determinations under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean M. Pavese and Michael P. Pavese were parties to a marital dissolution proceeding. The trial court issued a final judgment that named Mrs. Pavese …
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 Duration Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
In its final judgment dissolving the Paveses’ marriage, the trial court named Mrs. Pavese as the primary residential parent of the parties’ remaining minor child, directed Mr. Pavese to pay rehabilitative alimony and child support, reserved jurisdiction on the issue of permanent alimony, and distributed the parties’ assets and liabilities. In this appeal and cross-appeal, both parties point out that the final judgment does not contain factual findings that are required by law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in all respects except insofar as it dissolves the parties’ marriage and provides for custody of the child.
When awarding or denying alimony, a court is required to make factual findings pertinent to the marital standard of living, the duration of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, and the economic circumstances of the parties. § 61.08, Fla. Stat. (2003). The failure to make such findings is reversible error. Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). When awarding rehabilitative alimony, a court is required to make findings regarding the rehabilitative plan, and the failure to make such findings is reversible error. Zelahi v. Zel-ahi, 646 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (reversing and remanding for “findings of fact to support the goals for and the terms and amount of rehabilitative alimony”).
Relative to the issues of alimony and child support, a court is required to determine each party’s income. §§ 61.08(2)(g), .30(2). If income is imputed to a party, the court must make findings to support the amount. Alpert v. Alpert, 886 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review denied, 901 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2005).
In fashioning an equitable distribution, a court is required to make specific written findings of fact that identify, classify, value, and distribute the parties’ assets and liabilities. § 61.075(3). A final judgment without such findings must be reversed. Pignataro v. Rutledge, 841 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
As mentioned, the final judgment in this case lacks the necessary findings. This failure precludes meaningful appellate review. Moreover, the judgment left unresolved a number of issues raised by the parties. Because the evidence in several areas was disputed, we decline the parties’ invitations to comment on the issues in this case until the trial court makes its factual findings.
We affirm the dissolution of the parties’ marriage and the custody provisions. In all other respects, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. On remand the trial court may, in its discretion, take additional evidence. See Nicholas v. Nicholas, 870 So. 2d 245, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (noting that further evidentiary proceedings on remand are appropriate when necessary to serve the judicial purpose of promoting equity in marriage dissolutions). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
FULMER, C.J., and VILLANTI, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Julia v. Julia, 146 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ific written findings of fact that identify, classify, value, and distribute the parties’ assets and liabilities” in a trial court order regarding equitable distribution “precludes meaningful appellate review”) (quoting and citing Pavese v. Pave se, 932 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). Third, the court’s final judgment of dissolution does not adequately support its determination that $18,000 in debt should be allocated to the Wife. The trial court made no finding as to whether this liability was marital…
-
Lift v. Lift, 1 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…it contained no specific findings of fact. “In fashioning an equitable distribution, a court is required to make specific written findings of fact that identify, classify, value, and distribute the parties’ assets and liabilities.” Pavese v. Pavese, 932 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also Reddell v. Reddell, 899 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[a] trial court’s failure to make requisite findings regarding an equitable distribution constitutes reversible error”). The failure to do so preclude…
-
McCANTS v. McCANTS, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…record before us, we are compelled to reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider this issue. It is well-established that the trial court must determine each spouse’s income for purposes of alimony and child support. See Pavese v. Pavese, 932 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing §§ 61.08(2)(g), .30(2), Fla. Stat. (2003)). The court’s determination of a party’s net income must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Matias v. Matias, 948 So. 2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In a…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alpert v. Alpert, 886 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Pignataro v. Ara Rutledge, 841 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Lucky F. Zelahi v. Zelahi, 646 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Nicholas v. Nicholas, 870 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)