HINOJOSA
v.
HINOJOSA
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 dissolution of marriage appeal, the former wife challenges the trial court's denial of permanent alimony and various asset distribution decisions. The appellate court affirms the alimony denial and most asset decisions but reverses and remands regarding an unequally distributed JP Morgan 401k account and directs clarification of the marital home equity distribution upon refinance.
The court affirms the denial of permanent alimony and most asset distribution decisions but reverses regarding the JP Morgan 401k account because it was classified as marital property but not distributed. The court remands for equitable distribution of the 401k account and directs the trial court to clarify on remand how the former wife will be paid her share of the marital home's equity upon refinance.
[1] A trial court must equitably distribute all marital assets and liabilities in a dissolution action.
[2] A final judgment of dissolution must clearly explain a party's share of marital home equity upon refinance.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“requiring that a trial court in a dissolution action equitably distribute the parties' marital assets and liabilities”
Establishes the statutory mandate for equitable distribution in dissolution proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCynthia and Jason Hinojosa were in a dissolved marriage. The trial court issued a final judgment that classified a JP Morgan 401k account as marital p…
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 Final Judgment Of Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CYNTHIA HINOJOSA,
Appellant,
v.
JASON HINOJOSA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2023-0155
May 31, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Helene L. Daniel, Judge. K. Dean Kantaras of K. Dean Kantaras, P.A., Palm Harbor, for Appellant. Janelle A. Weber of Manta Law, Tampa, for Appellee. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
On this appeal of the final judgment of dissolution, Cynthia
Hinojosa (the former wife) challenges the trial court's denial of her
request for permanent alimony and its classification, valuation, and
distribution of various assets. We reverse in part and affirm in part.1
Although the final judgment classified as marital property a JP
Morgan 401k account, it did not further provide for the account's
equitable distribution. The former wife contends that this was error. We
agree, as does Jason Hinojosa (the former husband), who concedes that
remand is warranted on this basis.2 See § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2022)
(requiring that a trial court in a dissolution action equitably distribute
the parties' marital assets and liabilities); Hollister v. Hollister, 965 So. 2d
341, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing final judgment because the court
"listed and valued assets and liabilities in the final judgment but failed to
distribute them"). We therefore reverse and remand for equitable
distribution of the JP Morgan 401k account.
The final judgment also gives the former husband possession of the
marital home and directs him to either refinance or sell it. The former
wife contends that the judgment does not clearly explain what her share
will be if the former husband refinances. Because we are remanding for
distribution of the JP Morgan 401k account, we also direct that the trial
court on remand clarify how the former wife will be paid her share of the
marital home's equity upon refinance.
We otherwise affirm without further comment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
(holding that the purported lack of findings supporting an equitable distribution of marital property was not reversible error because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing or an acceptable substitute).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)