WILLIAM N. VEITH

v.

KELLY L. VEITH

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

WILLIAM N. VEITH,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D19-3450

KELLY L. VEITH,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 16, 2021

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Tanya Davis Wilson, Judge.

Barry W. Rigby, of Law Offices of Barry Rigby, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Adam H. Sudbury, of Apellie Legal, Orlando, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

William Veith (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court’s final judgment of dissolution of marriage, dissolving his marriage with Kelly Veith (“Former Wife”). Because the final judgment contains errors related to

1 In paragraph 16 of the final judgment, the trial court found that Former Husband had paid $500 for the months of August and September 2017, and $225 for December 2017. Then, in paragraph 18(d), the trial court found that he had paid $500 for August, September, and October 2017, along with adding a $300 payment for February 2018.

FORMER HUSBAND: Yes, ma'am.

TRIAL COURT: All right. I will say this, though. I will look at the dollar amounts as it relates to the alimony, meaning, did I use the correct numbers in

FORMER HUSBAND: Yes, ma'am. TRIAL COURT: So get that to me, and then I'll correct what I did wrong.

Despite Former Husband having filed the transcript, the trial court denied his motion for rehearing. This appeal followed. First, the final judgment and its attached equitable distribution worksheet contain two different equalizing payments owed by Former Wife. Considering the trial court offset the equalizing payment with Former Husband’s total support arrearage, a determination of the correct equalizing payment is critical to the overall equitable distribution scheme. On remand, the trial court should determine which equalizing payment is supported by the evidence and amend the final judgment accordingly. See Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So. 3d 30, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (remanding for trial court to clarify internal inconsistency between amended final judgment and attached equitable distribution schedule). Additionally, the trial court’s allocation of the post-engagement ring to Former Husband despite that asset

There are also internal inconsistencies as to the parties’ net monthly incomes, as the final judgment contains two different amounts for both parties. Although it appears the trial court used the monthly incomes included in Former Wife’s proposed final judgment, that does not explain why the final judgment contains two different income amounts for both parties, with one set used to calculate child support, while the other was used in addressing alimony. Consequently, there is a clear discrepancy on the face of the final judgment, and on remand, the trial court should resolve that inconsistency. See Karkhoff v. Robilotta, 309 So. 3d 229, 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“If the written judgment suffers from internal conflict or inconsistency, it ‘should be reversed and remanded for correction or clarification.’” (quoting Weymouth, 87 So. 3d at 36)).

The final judgment contains conflicting findings as to Former Husband’s arrearage payments, resulting in a mathematical error in the total amount of support arrears owed. Paragraph 18(d) of the final judgment includes arrearage payments that are not referenced in paragraph 16.

Next, Former Husband challenges the trial court’s order requiring him to obtain life insurance as security for his alimony and child support obligations, asserting that the final judgment lacks the necessary factual findings. As a general rule, “[a] party may not complain about ‘inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court’s attention in a motion for rehearing.’” Anaya v. Anaya, 987 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (quoting Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)). Former Husband admittedly did not address that issue in his motion for rehearing. However, because we are remanding, and given the nature of the issues which will require additional review by the trial court, we exercise our discretion to address this issue. See Keum San Yi v. State, 128 So. 3d 186, 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“Since we are reversing

Finally, the trial court erred by failing to account for its alimony award in calculating child support. See § 61.30(2)(a)9., (3)(g), Fla. Stat. (2018); see also Paul, 300 So. 3d at 812. The monthly income figures used to calculate

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

2 Although we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony, we note that the circumstances of this case suggest that bridge-the-gap alimony would have been more appropriate than durational.

3 The trial court should address the issues discussed in this opinion expeditiously in light of the approximately seven-month delay in the entry of the final judgment.