CICERO CARR, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ROSA LEE CARR, 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.
The former husband appealed a final divorce judgment, arguing the trial court failed to make required statutory findings of fact regarding asset distribution and alimony. The court reversed, holding that the trial court violated Florida law by failing to include specific findings justifying the unequal distribution of marital assets, identify all assets and liabilities as marital or nonmarital, and provide findings supporting the alimony award.
The court reversed because the trial court violated section 61.075 and section 61.08 of the Florida Statutes by failing to make specific findings of fact justifying the unequal distribution of assets, failing to identify all significant assets and liabilities as marital or nonmarital, awarding assets that did not exist or omitting known assets, and failing to make required findings to support the alimony award.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings of fact justifying an unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities in a final judgment of dissolution.
[2] A trial court is required to identify all significant marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities in a final judgment of dissolution.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 final judgment in this case lacked specific findings of fact justifying the apparently unequal distribution of assets and liabilities.”
Establishes the primary deficiency in the lower court's judgment—absence of required statutory findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn this dissolution of marriage case, the trial court awarded the marital home to the former wife without specific findings justifying the distributio…
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 Alimony Award cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
The former husband, Cicero Carr, Jr., appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We reverse because the trial court failed to include in the final judgment specific findings of fact which are required by statute.
The final judgment in this case lacked specific findings of fact justifying the apparently unequal distribution of assets and liabilities. In addition, the trial court did not identify all the parties’ significant as sets and liabilities as marital or nonmari-tal. Some of the assets were not included in the final judgment. Finally, the court awarded alimony to the former wife, Rosa Lee Carr, without making findings of fact. This too was error. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997), requires the trial court to make certain specific findings of fact. Among those is a specific finding of fact justifying an unequal distribution of assets and liabilities. See Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In the instant case, the marital home appears to be the major asset of the parties. The court awarded the marital home to the former wife without making a specific finding of fact justifying this unequal distribution. This was error. See Harreld, 682 So. 2d at 637; Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the court identified only the parties’ home and some tools and guns as marital assets. None of the liabilities were identified as marital or nonmarital. The trial court is required by section 61.075(3) to identify assets and liabilities as marital or nonmarital. See Lagstrom, 662 So. 2d at 757.
Our review of the record indicates that some assets were not mentioned in the final judgment and one asset which was awarded to the former wife does not exist. The final judgment awards to the wife possession of a 1991 Oldsmobile. The transcript of the final hearing, however, indicates that prior to the hearing the former wife sold the 1991 Oldsmobile and purchased, with financial help from her father, a 1994 Chevrolet Lumina. The transcript of the hearing also indicates that the wife has a life insurance policy with a cash surrender value of $5,000. This asset was not mentioned in the final judgment. Upon remand, the trial court should follow the requirements of section 61.075 by making specific findings, identifying all of the assets and liabilities, and assigning individual valuation to all significant assets.
The final judgment directs the former husband to maintain life insurance policies with his employer for the benefit of his former wife. The record, however, indicates that there was insufficient evidence to support this finding. The court upon remand should direct the parties to present such additional evidence as it may require to make an informed decision concerning any life insurance of the former husband. See Wetzel v. Wetzel, 671 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
The trial court erred by failing to make the required findings to support the award of alimony to the former wife. Section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1997), requires such findings to be made after consideration of all relevant factors. See Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Upon remand, the trial court is directed to make the statutorily required findings as to any award of alimony.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and HAYES, HUGH D., Associate Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Feger v. Feger, 850 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…sequent order, however, fail to identify that factor or any other particular factor as a justification for an unequal distribution. A court must provide a legally sufficient factual basis for its unequal distribution of marital assets. Carr v. Carr, 779 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635, 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In Harreld, 682 So. 2d at 636, this court noted that although the trial court provided a finding that could be read as an explanation for an unequal distribution, t…
-
Marshall v. Marshall, 953 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…s knowledge), the final judgment fails to identify that factor, or any other factor as a justification for an unequal distribution. A court must provide a legally sufficient factual basis for its unequal distribution of marital assets. Carr v. Carr, 779 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635, 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We conclude that the trial court erred by awarding the former wife her entire 401k account as lump sum alimony, exclusive possession of the marital home until her d…
Authorities Cited
- Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Sasnett v. Odell O. Sasnett, 679 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Wetzel v. Wetzel, 671 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)