TERRY D. FURR, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY M. FURR, WIFE, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Valuation Date cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, the former husband, seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He challenges the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony, attorney’s fees, and costs to the former wife; the valuation date used by the trial court in the equitable distribution of his retirement account; and the distribution of the marital debts. We affirm because, to the extent the former husband is challenging the sufficiency of the findings on these issues in the final judgment, he failed to preserve the issues for appellate review through a motion for rehearing or other post-judgment filing, see Mize v. Mize, 45 So.3d 49, 49 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); and, to the extent he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings on these issues, he failed to demonstrate reversible error. See Klette v. Klette, 785 So.2d 562, 563-64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979), and explaining that the appellate court is unable to determine whether the omission of statutorily-required findings constitutes harmful error in the absence of a transcript).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, CLARK and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burkett v. Burkett, 155 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…are constrained to affirm as to this issue because the former husband did not file a motion for rehearing alerting the trial court to the deficiencies in the findings. See Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); See Furr v. Furr, 57 So. 3d 914, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). The former husband has also raised our suspicions concerning substantive error in the decision to award attorney’s fees, in the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, and in the inclusion of all the attorney’s fees in the incom…
-
Schneider v. Schneider, 189 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…at the hearing would clarify the basis for the'fee award and the fee order’s focus on one aspect of the parties’ circumstances. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Burkett, 155 So. 3d at 478; Furr v. Furr, 57 So. 3d 914, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. OSTERHAUS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. . We do not read the trial court’s order as ' finding the former husband in contempt for making his first post-judgment child support payment thr…
-
Brock v. Brock, 229 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…r rehearing, which challenged other aspects of the amended final judgment. Consequently, we hold they either were not preserved for appellate review or were' expressly waived. Byers v. Byers, 149 So. 3d 161, 161-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Furr v. Furr, 57 So. 3d 914, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Mem.); Mize v. Mize, 45 So. 3d 49, 49 & n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Welch v. Welch, 22 So. 3d 153, 155-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So. 2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169, 116…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Klette v. Klette, 785 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Mize v. Mize, 45 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Gil Cancel Comas v. State, 45 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)