CHRISTIAN MATTEIS, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTORIA MATTEIS, 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 marital dissolution case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed most of the trial court's final judgment but reversed and remanded the portion addressing the marital residence sale because the judgment failed to resolve critical issues regarding expense allocation and contingencies for an unsold property.
The court affirmed the judgment in all respects except as to the marital residence. The court reversed and remanded that portion, finding the judgment contained unanswered questions apparent on its face regarding payment of residence expenses pending sale and the need for a deadline and contingency plan for an unsold property.
[1] An appellate court must affirm a trial court's decision when the appellant fails to provide a transcript or proper substitute, unless the trial court's error is clear on…
[2] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage is insufficient if it fails to resolve issues regarding the sale of the marital residence, including responsibility for expens…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 parties shall cooperate to market the marital home for a sale. They shall equally divide any proceeds of sale and shall equally be responsible for any debt arising from the sale.”
The challenged provision of the final judgment that the court found inadequate regarding marital residence disposition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristian and Victoria Matteis were divorcing. The trial court issued a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage that directed the parties to coopera…
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 Mortgage Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
Christian Matteis (“former husband”) timely appeals the Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. He raises a number of issues on appeal. With one exception, we áffirm the final judgment. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). Because the final judgment fails to resolve certain issues in connection with the sale of the marital residence, we reverse that part of the final judgment and remand for further clarification or consideration.
One exception to the general rule arising from Applegate, that failure to provide a transcript or proper substitute demands an affirmance of the trial court’s decision, is where the trial court’s error is clear on the face of the order or judgment. Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see also Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So.3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
With respect to the marital residence, the final judgment provides: “The parties shall cooperate to market the marital home for a sale. They shall equally divide any proceeds of sale and shall equally be responsible for any debt arising from the sale.” The former husband argues that the final judgment failed to address various issues surrounding the marital residence, including: (i) who would be responsible for the late homeowner’s association fees; (ii) who would be responsible for *1049paying the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance pending the sale to keep the home from being foreclosed on by the bank; and (iii) what will happen if the house is not sold.
We agree that there are many unanswered questions regarding the disposition of the marital residence, which are apparent on the face of the final judgment. Accordingly, we remand for clarification of the issues concerning the payment of expenses of the marital residence pending its sale, as well as any contingency in the event the parties are unable to sell the residence within a specified time as determined by the trial court. See Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So.2d 271, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (remanding in part for clarification of the disposition of the marital residence); see also Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So.2d 393, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (“[I]f the court allows the parties to conclude a nonjudicial sale the judgment must fix a reasonable deadline by which the sale must take place”).
Affirmed in part, Reversed in Part and Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.,
CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Teodoro Lopez v. Mariana Garcia Hernandez, 252 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Lardizzone v. Lardizzone, 190 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…by insurance and by workers’ compensation. Because we do not have a transcript of the final hearing, we may reverse only where there is error on the face of the judgment or where the judgment requires further clarification. See Matteis v. Matteis, 82 So. 3d 1048, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Chetram v, Singh, 984 So. 2d 614, 615-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Without a transcript, we cannot review the trial court’s finding that the husband’s injury occurred during the intact marriage. We conclude, howeyer, that the…
-
Sunderwirth v. Sunderwirth (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…Wife, even if they had been supported by competent substantial evidence in the record for the purposes of section 61.30(2)(a)(13), was error which appears on the face of the supplemental final judgment and warrants reversal. See Matteis v. Matteis, 82 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Accordingly, we reverse only that portion of the supplemental final judgment related to the calculation of child support as related to the in kind contribution amount and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opini…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Schumaker v. Schumaker, 931 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)