PATRICIA ANN WILLIAMS, WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
JACKIE G. WILLIAMS, HUSBAND, 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 this divorce case, Patricia Williams appealed the trial court's division of marital property in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, finding that the trial court failed to provide adequate findings to support its valuations of the art collection and the equalization payment to the wife.
The court held that the Final Judgment lacked sufficient factual findings to support the art collection valuation and the equalization payment amount, making meaningful appellate review impossible. The trial court must provide specific written findings identifying marital assets, individually valuing significant assets, and explaining its methodology with reference to statutory factors.
[1] A trial court must support any distribution of marital assets or liabilities with factual findings in the judgment, based on competent substantial evidence, and referenci…
[2] A trial court must make specific written findings of fact identifying marital assets and individually valuing significant 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“Because the Final Judgment contains no specific findings as to the value of the collection, other than the total amount itself, it is impossible to determine how the trial court reached the value it placed on the collection, or whether the value is supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes that lack of findings regarding asset valuation prevents appellate review and requires reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia and Jackie Williams were divorcing. The trial court valued their art collection at $376,086, a figure between the former husband's expert app…
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 Valuation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
Patricia Williams appeals from the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage equitably dividing the parties’ property. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
It is unclear from the Final Judgment how the trial court reached the figure of $376,086 in valuing the parties’ art collection. This dollar amount does not align with either figure offered by the parties’ respective expert witnesses who appraised *606the collection. The value the trial court placed on the collection is nearly $100,000 below the $470,107 appraisal by the former husband’s expert witness and is more than $300,000 below the $688,550 appraisal by the former wife’s expert.
Because the Final Judgment contains no specific findings as to the value of the collection, other than the total amount itself, it is impossible to determine how the trial court reached the value it placed on the collection, or whether the value is supported by competent substantial evidence. Further, the Final Judgment expressly indicates that the valuation does not include the pieces housed in Florida, but encompasses only those in New Mexico. Therefore, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to explain how it reached the value it placed on the collection and to set forth a value as to the pieces housed in Florida. See Blossman v. Blossman, 92 So.3d 878, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Wendroff v. Wendroff, 614 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Augoshe v. Lehman, 962 So.2d 398, 402-03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Competent substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the family business and its assets constituted a marital contingent asset that could not be accurately valued at the time of the Final Judgment. However, as to the equalization payment the court awarded to the wife, the Final Judgment does not indicate how the trial court reached the figure of $195,507 for this payment. The Judgment states only that the figure included the Social Security checks, the withdrawal from the joint bank account, and the FEMA payment. These items do not total the amount of the equalization payment, and there are no findings or explanation in the Final Judgment as to how the court reached the amount of the equalization payment.
A trial court must support any distribution of marital assets or liabilities with factual findings in the judgment, based on competent substantial evidence, with reference to the statutory factors. See § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat.; Winney v. Winney, 979 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Nicewonder v. Nicewonder, 602 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). It must make specific written findings of fact identifying marital assets and individually valuing significant assets. See § 61.075(3)(b), Fla. Stat.; Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So.3d 750, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Wendroff v. Wendroff, 614 So.2d 590, 593-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The lack of any such findings in the Final Judgment here makes meaningful appellate review of the equalization payment impossible.
For these reasons we remand the case to the trial court to make specific written findings as to the amount the former husband owed the former wife on the FEMA payment, and to explain how it arrived at the total amount of the equalization payment. The court shall explain in writing its method of calculating the amount of the equalization payment, with reference to the factors set forth in section 61.075, Florida Statutes. Also on remand, the trial court shall set forth specific findings as to the value of the art collection, including the two sculptures in Florida, along with the evidence on which the court relied in reaching its valuation. In all other respects, the Final Judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Williams, 163 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…discrepancy. Therefore, the trial court must amend its judgment to provide sufficient documentation and evidence to support its distribution and enable this Court to undertake meaningful review. See § 61.075(3)(d), Fla. Stat.; Williams v. Williams, 133 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). (equalization payment and asset distribution must be supported by competent, substantial evidence and trial court must provide sufficient findings and documentation to allow the appellate court meaningful review). Third, M…
-
Mischelle Matteson v. Matteson, 174 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…dress the equitable distribution, but no such attachments were included in the recoi'd on appeal. This issue is reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to make specific findings on equitable distribution. See Williams v. Williams, 133 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (reversing and remanding for specific findings on equitable distribution where the lack of findings made meaningful appellate review impossible). Also on remand, the trial court should consider whether to include instruction…
-
Janett Maxine Smith v. Smith, 338 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…ble to conduct a meaningful review of the distribution ordered by the trial court.” Navarro v. Navarro, 209 So. 3d 74, 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (citing Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157, 1157–58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); see also Williams v. Williams, 133 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (the trial court “must make specific written findings of fact identifying marital assets and individually valuing significant assets”). In the present case, the trial court’s judgment includes only cursory and conclusory fac…
Authorities Cited
- Wendroff v. Wendroff, 614 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Nicewonder v. Arstine Nicewonder, 602 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Yovall Augoshe v. Lehman, 962 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Winney v. Jayme Carol Winney, 979 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Blossman v. Blossman, 92 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)