EDWARD P. OBRENSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
KAYETTE J. OBRENSKI, 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.
In this family law appeal, the husband challenges the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution, custody, and visitation rulings but reversed and remanded multiple issues—including equitable distribution, alimony, child support, and related matters—because the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact to support its decisions.
The court affirmed the trial court's decisions on dissolution of marriage, child custody, and child visitation, but reversed and remanded all other issues—including equitable distribution, permanent alimony, child support, life insurance as security, health and dental insurance, purchase of an automobile, and attorney's fees—because the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact to support its rulings and enable meaningful appellate review. The court also condemned the eight-month delay between the beginning and conclusion of trial as unacceptable absent extraordinary circumstances.
[1] A trial court's failure to make findings to explain or support its rulings prevents meaningful appellate review.
[2] A trial court must make findings regarding asset and liability valuations, marital and nonmarital property, and parties' respective incomes to support its rulings on equi…
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 final judgment of dissolution of marriage fails to contain valuations of assets or liabilities; it fails to indicate which assets are marital and which are nonmarital; and it fails to list the respective incomes of the parties. Without appropriate findings in the final judgment, there is no meaningful basis for appellate review.”
Establishes the core deficiency requiring reversal and remand—absence of essential findings of fact necessary for appellate review of financial determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward P. Obrenski and Kayette J. Obrenski were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court conducted the trial in a bifurcated m…
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 Life Insurance As Security cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The husband, Edward P. Obrenski, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellate counsel for Kayette J. Obrenski, the wife, has candidly conceded the majority of issues raised by the husband in this matter. We affirm the trial court’s decision only on the issues of dissolution of marriage, child custody, and child visitation. On all other issues, we are compelled to reverse and remand for a new trial. These issues include equitable distribution, permanent alimony, child support, life insurance as security for alimony and/or child support, health and dental insurance coverage for the benefit of the parties’ minor children, the purchase of an automobile by the husband for the wife, and attorney’s fees.
Here, as in Fisher v. Fisher, 722 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the trial court failed to make any findings to explain or support its rulings. See McDaniel v. McDaniel, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). For example, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage fails to contain valuations of assets or liabilities; it fails to indicate which assets are marital and which are nonmarital; and it fails to list the respective incomes of the parties. Without appropriate findings in the final judgment, there is no meaningful basis for appellate review. Both parties have lamented the daunting prospect of having to retry virtually all of the issues in this case. Anxiety and expense are but two of the byproducts of such a retrial.
One final matter that merits comment in this cause is the bifurcated way in which the case was tried. The first segment of testimony took place on the afternoon of July 25, 2000, and the next segment took place the following morning. Eight months then elapsed before the final segment occurred on March 20, 2001. We cannot ascertain from this record the reason why the case was not finalized in July 2000. However, barring extraordinary circumstances, an eight-month delay between beginning a dissolution trial and concluding that trial is unacceptable. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.085 states in pertinent part:
(a) Judges and lawyers have a professional obligation to conclude litigation as soon as it is reasonably and justly possible to do so.... (b) The trial judge shall take charge of all cases at an early stage in the litigation and shall control the progress of the case thereafter until the case is determined. The trial judge shall take specific steps to monitor and control the pace of the litigation....
This rule is more than mere verbiage; it sets forth a nondelegable duty directed particularly at judges to control and conclude litigation in a reasonable and timely fashion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BLUE, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin v. Austin, 12 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…arding an anticipated future decrease in income based on disability insurance payments ceasing at age sixty-five. In this case, the lack of adequate findings hampers meaningful appellate review. See Williams, 923 So. 2d at 608; Obrenski v. Obrenski, 817 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710, 711-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Milo v. Milo, 718 So. 2d 343, 344-45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). With respect to attorney’s fees, our reversal of the equitable distribution scheme and alimony award will…
-
Walker v. Walker, 818 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…DCA 1982). Because the final judgment does not include adequate factual findings, it must be reversed. See Cardillo, 707 So. 2d at 351. Without such findings, there is no meaningful basis for appellate review of the award. See Obrenski v. Obrenski, 817 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Zelahi v. Zelahi 646 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Additionally, automatic changes in alimony payments based upon the occurrence of future events are generally disfavored. Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- McDANIEL v. McDANIEL, 653 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 722 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)