DONALD JERICKA, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA JERICKA, 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.
A former husband appeals a final judgment awarding permanent periodic alimony to his ex-wife, challenging the trial court's failure to make adequate factual findings supporting the alimony award. The appellate court affirms because the appellant failed to provide a transcript or statement of evidence, which precludes meaningful appellate review.
While the trial court did err in failing to make the specific factual determinations required by Florida law regarding need and ability to pay, the appellate court must affirm because the appellant's failure to provide a transcript or statement of evidence precludes meaningful appellate review, particularly the harmless error analysis required in alimony cases.
[1] An appellate court must affirm a trial court's judgment when the appellant fails to provide a transcript or statement of evidence, as this precludes review of the factual…
[2] Failure by a trial court to make specific factual determinations regarding need and ability to pay alimony constitutes reversible error.
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“Section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2012), requires a trial court to make specific factual determinations as to whether either party has an actual need for alimony and whether either party has the ability to pay alimony.”
Establishes the legal requirement for factual findings in alimony awards
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for approximately 36 years beginning in September 1977. The former husband was self-employed as an electrician and business o…
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 Need For Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Donald Jericka (the Former Husband) appeals the final judgment of dissolution that awarded Linda Jericka (the Former Wife) permanent periodic alimony. Because the Former,-Husband failed to provide a transcript or statement of evidence, we affirm.
The parties were married in September 1977 and remained married for approximately thirty-six years. In March 2013, the Former Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The Former Husband was employed as an electrician and owned and managed his own business with several employees. Throughout the dissolution proceedings, the Former Husband filed five financial affidavits. Each subsequent affidavit showed diminishing income from his business. In the final affidavit, the Former Husband claimed $0 as his monthly income derived from his corporation, showing roughly a $3900 decrease from the initial affidavit.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment and ordered the Former Husband to pay the Former Wife $2000 a month for permanent periodic alimony. Based upon the Former Husband’s multiple income amendments to his financial affidavits, the trial court determined that the Former Husband.was less credible than the Former, Wife and that the Former Husband appeared to manage his business in a way to affect the alimony award. With these exceptions, the trial court did not make any other factual findings in the final judgment to support its ruling that the Former Husband pay permanent periodic alimony each month. The record contains neither a transcript nor a statement of evidence or proceedings as provided for. by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4).
The Former Husband contends that the trial court erred in failing to make factual findings in support of its alimony award. Section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2012), requires a trial court to make specific factual determinations as to whether either party has an actual need for alimony and whether either party has the ability to pay alimony. See Crick v. Crick, 78 So.3d 696, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Failure to make these findings is reversible error. See Farley v. Farley, 800 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We note that the order on appeal in this case is bereft of the requisite factual findings and, with the exception of the findings regarding the Former Husband’s financial affidavits, merely tracked the language found in section 61.08(2). See Melo v. Melo, 864 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)... But we are compelled to affirm as the Former Husband has failed to provide a transcript or statement-under rule 9.200(b)(4). This failure precludes this court from reviewing *663the factual or legal basis for the trial court’s decision. See Klette v. Klette, 785 So.2d 562, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“The most salient impediment to meaningful review of the trial court’s decision is not the absence of findings, but the absence of a transcript.”). We recognize that in some cases the absence of a transcript does not preclude reversal where the error is apparent on the face of the judgment. See Hoirup v. Hoirup, 862 So.2d 780, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), However, a harmless error review is required in alimony cases, and the lack of a transcript frustrates our ability to conduct such a review. Klette, 785 So.2d at 563-64. That is, without the transcript or suitable substitute, we cannot evaluate the entire case as required for. a harmless error analysis. Id. at 563. Accordingly, we .affirm.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and SLEET, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Justine Frezza v. Frezza, 216 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…t is precluded from reviewing the factual or legal basis for the trial court’s decisions regarding the tax refund, water bills, boat loan, past medical and child care expenses, and parental responsibility and decision making. See Jericka v. Jericka, 198 So. 3d 661, 662-63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). “[W]e will only reverse where the error appears on the face of the judgment.” See Cranney v. Cranney, 206 So. 3d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Having determined that there are no so such errors, we affirm these issues. Cf.…
-
Cleto Marcello Cardona v. Casas, 225 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…st permanent periodic alimony nor shown an. abuse of the trial court’s discretion, The absence of a transcript also precludes review of the remaining forms of alimony initially requested by the former wife.” (citations omitted)); Jericka v. Jericka, 198 So. 3d 661, 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“We recognize that in some cases the absence of a transcript does not preclude reversal where the error is apparent on the face of the judgment. ‘However, a harmless error review is'required in alimony cases, and the lack of…
-
McGee v. Angeline E. McGee, 264 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…rt the temporary alimony and equitable distribution of marital debt as ordered by the trial court, these portions of the final judgment are affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979); Jericka v. Jericka, 198 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) and Klette v. Klette, 785 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2017). 2 The former husband also challenges the trial court’s determinatio…
Authorities Cited
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Klette v. Klette, 785 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Crick v. Robbin Vickery Crick, 78 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Dashiwa Corp. v. Tashi Valley, Inc., 862 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Hoirup v. Thora H. Hoirup, 862 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Melo v. Melo, 864 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)