YU WU, APPELLANT,
v.
XIAOMING XING, 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 appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court's final judgment awarded the marital home and permanent periodic alimony without articulating the specific factual findings required by Florida statute to support these awards, frustrating meaningful appellate review.
The final judgment is insufficient as a matter of law. The trial court must articulate specific findings of fact to justify an unequal distribution of the marital home and must articulate the basis for the award of permanent periodic alimony, including the statutory factors required under Florida law.
[1] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage is insufficient as a matter of law when it awards the marital home without articulating specific findings of fact based on com…
[2] A trial court must articulate specific findings of fact to justify an unequal distribution of marital assets.
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“the trial court awarded appellee sole legal ownership of the marital home, the parties' only significant asset, without articulating specific findings of fact, based on competent substantial evidence, to support this award, as required under Chapter 61”
Establishes the core deficiency in the judgment—lack of required statutory findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a final hearing in which the appellant proceeded pro se, the trial court awarded the appellee sole legal ownership of the marital home, the part…
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 Unequal Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
After review, we determine the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is insufficient as a matter of law. Following a final hearing in which Appellant proceeded pro se, the trial court awarded appellee sole legal ownership of the marital home, the parties’ only significant asset, without articulating specific findings of fact, based on competent substantial evidence, to support this award, as required under Chapter 61. See § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2008); Lee v. Lee, 56 So.3d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating the trial court must articulate specific findings of fact to justify an unequal distribution); Guobaitis v. Sherrer, 18 So.3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (remanding case to trial court where final judgment failed to include specific findings to support disproportionate distribution of parties’ assets and liabilities); Austin v. Austin, 12 So.3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); DeLillo v. DeLillo, 848 So.2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
In addition, the final judgment awarded permanent periodic alimony without articulating the basis for such an award.1 See § 61.08(2)(a)-(g), Fla. Stat. (2010); Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Austin, 12 So.3d at 317. Because the absence of statutory findings in the final judgment frustrates meaningful appellate review in this case, we reverse in part and remand for the trial court to amend its final judgment to include the requisite factual findings to support its award of the marital home, permanent periodic alimony and attorney’s fees and costs2 in accordance with Chapter 61, Florida Statutes. See Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (noting that reversal is appropriate where the absence of statutory findings in a final judgment frustrates the court’s appellate review). We find the other issues raised by Appellant to be without merit and affirm in all other respects the final judgment of dissolution.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Broadfoot v. Rocio E. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Austin v. Austin, 12 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Guobaitis v. Sherrer, 18 So. 3d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Ramdamar v. State, 848 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- LEE v. LEE, 56 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)