ARVITA M. COLEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL BLAND, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Marital Asset Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
Arvita M. Coleman [“Former Wife”] appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Michael Bland [“Former Husband”]. We find no reversible error in any of the issues raised on appeal, save one. Among the issues in dispute between these parties was the question whether any part of Former Husband’s pension was a marital asset. The trial court made no finding in the final judgment concerning whether *796this asset was marital or non-marital, as required by section 61.075(8), Florida Statutes (2009). Former Wife contends on appeal that the lack of findings constitutes reversible error as to this and other assets; however, as to all except the pension, we find, after our review of the record, that any error was harmless. We are unable to make an adequate review of the pension issue without findings, however. The record seems to show that some portion of the pension, although small, was earned during the marriage and should be classified as a marital asset. We therefore reverse as to that issue only and remand for the trial court to hear and to make proper findings on the disposition of the Former Husband’s pension.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arvita M. Coleman v. Bland, 187 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ned during the marriage and should be classified as a marital asset. We therefore reverse as to that issue only and remand for the trial court to hear and to make proper findings on the disposition of the Former Husband’s pension. Coleman v. Bland, 73 So. 3d 795, 795-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing which addressed the former husband’s pension. The trial court applied the following methodology to determine the marital portion of the pension: ' 31 years times 52 weeks…
-
Arvita M. Coleman v. Bland, 152 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…, later amended, dissolving her marriage to Michael Bland (“Former Husband”). At that time, we found no reversible error as to any of the issues raised, except as to whether any part of Former Husband’s pension was a marital asset. Coleman v. Bland, 73 So. 3d 795, 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). We determined that the record showed that a small portion of the pension was earned during the marriage and should be classified as a marital asset; therefore, we remanded -as to only that issue for the court to make proper…
-
Pearson v. Shay Rae Pearson, 268 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence