RICHARD C. MIZE, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
HEIDI W. MIZE, WIFE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The Husband contests a Final Order of Dissolution, arguing, among other things, that the trial court made insufficient fact findings to support its apportionment of liabilities, its denial of his motion to vacate a temporary alimony award, and its decision to grant the Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees. We agree these determinations were not supported by adequate fact findings. However, because the Husband failed to challenge the insufficiency of the fact findings through a motion for rehearing or by any other post-judgment pleading, he has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.1 For this reason, and because we find the Husband’s remaining arguments meritless, the Final Judgment of Dissolution is AFFIRMED.
KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…issue was not preserved for appellate review, in that Mr. Achurra never brought this matter to the trial court to afford a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency. See Jonsson v. Dickinson, 46 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Mize v. Mize, 45 So. 3d 49, 49 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). However, we can consider for the first time on appeal the “insufficiency of the evidence” issue. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(e); Welch v. Welch, 22 So. 3d 153, 154 (Fl…
-
Badgley v. Sanchez, 165 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…2d 166, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998))); see also Dorsett v. Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Whe-lan and reversing due to judgment’s failure to make finding regarding value of assets, despite lack of transcript). But see Mize v. Mize, 45 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (refusing to reverse due to absence of findings required by statute where appellant failed to bring deficiency to attention of trial court); Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (same); Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d…
-
FOX v. FOX, 262 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…allenged the adequacy of the findings in a motion for rehearing or by any other means available in the trial court." Id. The First District "determine[d] that this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review." Id. ; see also Mize v. Mize , 45 So. 3d 49, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (footnote omitted) ("[B]ecause the Husband failed to challenge the insufficiency of the fact findings through a motion for rehearing or by any other post-judgment pleading, he has failed to preserve these issues for appellate…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Dukene Myrtil v. State, 979 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Welch v. Welch, 22 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)