FRANCIS FREDERICK BUSSEY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JEAN A. BUSSEY, 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.
This case involves a husband's appeal of a divorce judgment challenging the trial court's failure to include specific asset values and marital/nonmarital designations in its equitable distribution award, and the propriety of an attorneys' fees award. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the statutory requirements under Florida law mandate detailed findings of fact regarding asset valuation and classification.
The court held that the trial court's failure to include statutorily required findings of fact regarding the value and marital/nonmarital designation of each asset violated Florida law and prevented meaningful appellate review. The court also held that the attorneys' fees award could not be upheld due to insufficient evidence regarding the wife's employment status and income at the time of dissolution.
[1] A trial court's failure to include specific written findings of fact regarding the clear identification of nonmarital assets, the identification of marital assets, and th…
[2] A trial court must include specific written findings of fact supporting an award or denial of alimony.
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 distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include specific written findings of fact as to the following: (a) Clear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests; (b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset”
This establishes the statutory requirement under Florida Statutes Chapter 61.075(3) for detailed findings in equitable distribution awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrancis Frederick Bussey, Jr. appealed a final divorce judgment from his ex-wife Jean A. Bussey. The trial court awarded various assets and liabilitie…
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 And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
This appeal concerns the effect of the trial court’s failure to include values and marital/nonmarital designations in an equitable distribution award, and the propriety of an award of attorneys’ fees.
The husband contends that he is unable to challenge the trial court’s equitable distribution award because the final judgment does not include a specific value and marital/nonmarital designation for each asset. As a result, the husband argues, this court is unable to engage in meaningful review of the trial court’s equitable distribution award.
Effective July 1, 1991, the legislature added subsection (3) to Chapter 61.075, Florida Statutes:
(3) ... The distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include specific written findings of fact as to the following:
(a) Clear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests;
(b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset ... (Emphasis added)
The First DCA has held that failure to include a marital/nonmarital designation and a specific value for each asset requires reversal and remand. Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dyson v. Dyson, 597 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Prom v. Prom, 589 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Cf. Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (pursuant to section 61.08, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), trial court must include findings of fact supporting award or denial of alimony).
In the instant case, the final judgment simply lists the assets awarded and liabilities assigned to each party but con tains no findings regarding value and marital/nonmarital designation. Without these statutorily required findings, we are unable to review the fairness of the equitable distribution awards.
The husband also appeals the award of attorneys' fees to the wife based on his argument that the wife failed to prove her need and his ability to pay these fees. As to the .wife’s need, the record contains no conclusive evidence regarding her employment status at the time of the dissolution. We do know that the wife’s annual salary in 1991 was $61,560.00 and that she had been notified her employment would terminate in February, 1992. However, it is unclear from the record whether she did, in fact, lose her job at that time. Because the wife’s employment status and annual income are unclear, we are unable to determine whether an award of attorneys’ fees was proper in this case.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment, except as to the dissolution of marriage, and remand with instructions to the trial court to include specific values and marital/nonmarital designations in its equitable distribution of the assets as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes. In addition, the court should hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of attorneys’ fees, at which time it should determine conclusively the wife’s employment status and annual income. An express finding regarding same should be included in the final judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Woodard v. Jaymie Sands Woodard, 634 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…the majority that on remand the trial court should make “specific written findings of fact” regarding whether the wife’s inheritance is a non-marital or marital asset as required by section 61.-075(3), Florida Statutes (1993). See Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). I further agree that the trial court should make a finding regarding whether the wife has met her burden of proving that no gift of the inheritance was intended when it was commingled with marital funds and held in a joint accou…1 / 2
-
Lou Jean Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…red by section 61.075(3) as to the identity of marital assets, their valuation, and their ultimate disposition to the parties (outright or by way of substitution of assets). See Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Until those findings are made, an appellate court cannot undertake a meaningful review of the appealed judgment. In addition, the trial court is directed by section 61.075(…
-
Keaton v. Keaton, 634 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…liabilities. Without specific findings as to the value of marital assets, meaningful appellate review is impossible. Prom v. Prom, 589 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Failure to follow that statutory language is reversible error. Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for continuance after he had fired his fourth attorney shortly before trial. A continuance lies within the trial court’s discretion and a ruling d…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Prom v. Prom, 589 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Dyson v. Dyson, 597 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Sweet v. Fin. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Dade Cnty., 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)