SCOTT A. BROCK, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLYN ANN BROCK, FORMER WIFE, 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.
Scott Brock appealed an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets, award of permanent alimony to his former wife, and child support award. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the issues were not preserved for review and that the trial court's determinations were supported by the record.
The court held that the issues were not preserved for appellate review or were expressly waived because they were not raised at the trial court level. Additionally, the court held that even without detailed statutory findings, the trial court's decisions on equitable distribution, alimony, and child support were supported by the record and reflected the court's independent analysis rather than mere adoption of one party's proposal.
[1] Issues not raised in the trial court are not preserved for appellate review.
[2] Issues not raised in the trial court may be deemed expressly waived for appellate review.
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 issues now raised on appeal by the former husband were not brought to the trial court's attention either during the final hearing or in the former husband's motion for rehearing, which challenged other aspects of the amended final judgment. Consequently, we hold they either were not preserved for appellate review or were expressly waived.”
Establishes the core holding regarding preservation of error and waiver of unraised issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott and Carolyn Brock were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court entered an amended final judgment addressing equitable d…
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 Waiver Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm, in all respects the Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The issues now raised on appeal by the former husband were not brought to the trial court’s attention either during the final hearing or in the former husband’s motion for rehearing, which challenged other aspects of the amended final judgment. Consequently, we hold they either were not preserved for appellate review or were' expressly waived. Byers v. Byers, 149 So.3d 161, 161-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Furr v. Furr, 57 So.3d 914, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Mem.); Mize v. Mize, 45 So.3d 49, 49 & n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Welch v. Welch, 22 So.3d 153, 155-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169, 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Regardless, because the evidentiary bases for the trial court’s equitable distribution of the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, its award of permanent alimony to the former wife, and its award of child support were reasonably clear and supported by the record, we perceive no reason to reverse for lack of statutory findings in the written judgment, Buchanan v. Buchanan, No. 1D16-4492, 225 So.3d 1002, 1003-04, 2017 WL 4018417 at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA September 13, 2017). Finally, our review of the record convinces us that even *426though the trial court adopted the former wife’s proposed final judgment, there is no evidence that its doing so resulted in a “substitute for [the court’s] thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law .... ” Byers, 149 So.3d at 162 (citing Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So.2d 383, 390 (Fla. 2004)).
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahoney v. Mahoney, 251 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…required by section 61.30(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016). The former husband’s failure to bring this aspect of the child support order to the trial court’s attention—in his motion for rehearing—waived his argument on this issue. See Brock v. Brock, 229 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (Mem.) (citing cases). abuse of discretion. Ziruolo v. Ziruolo, 217 So. 3d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Attorney fee awards in dissolution actions are governed by section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2016), “which requires the co…
-
Vance G. Russell v. Russell, 295 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…sues had been properly preserved, Appellant failed to establish a lack of evidence to support the court’s findings or any harmful error in the omission of child-related factors where no children were born of the marriage. See, e.g., Brock v. Brock, 229 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Mize, 45 So. 3d at 49. Appellant also challenges the trial court’s admission of evidence and determinations of the weight and credibility of the respective expert witnesses and their reports. But no abuse of the trial court’s d…
-
Vinson v. Vinson (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Esig Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004)
- Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Dukene Myrtil v. State, 979 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Welch v. Welch, 22 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Mize v. Mize, 45 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Gil Cancel Comas v. State, 45 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Furr v. Furr, 57 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Buchanan v. Buchanan, 225 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Byers v. Brantley Dubose Byers, 149 So. 3d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)