HARVEY POMERANZ, APPELLANT,
v.
RONNA SALINGER POMERANZ, 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 appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The court affirmed the trial court's refusal to incorporate a property settlement agreement due to inadequate financial disclosure but reversed the equitable distribution of the former wife's IRA for lack of specific findings.
Yes, the trial court erred by failing to equitably distribute the former wife's IRA and by failing to provide the required specific written findings of fact to explain its rationale for the distribution of marital assets.
[1] A trial court may refuse to incorporate a property settlement agreement into a final judgment of dissolution if there is inadequate financial disclosure to a party.
[2] Decisions regarding the equitable distribution of marital assets are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
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 trial court refused to incorporate into the final judgment a property settlement agreement signed by both parties because there was not “adequate financial disclosure” to the former wife.”
Establishes the basis for the trial court's refusal to incorporate the settlement agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court refused to incorporate a property settlement agreement due to inadequate financial disclosure by the former husband. The court then eq…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Former Husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court refused to incorporate into the final judgment a property settlement agreement signed by both parties because there was not “adequate financial disclosure” to the former wife. We affirm, without comment, on all grounds raised by the Former Husband except one.
After disregarding the property settlement agreement, the trial court equitably distributed the appreciation in the bond portion of the Former Husband’s IRA. However, the judge failed to equitably distribute the assets in the Former Wife’s IRA, even though the judge made a finding of fact that the Former Wife’s IRA “was substantially funded during the marriage.”
Decisions of the trial court concerning the equitable distribution of marital assets are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The failure of the trial judge to explain why this marital asset would not be equitably distributed, when all other marital assets were equitably distributed, runs afoul of section 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Therein, an equitable distribution plan requires “specific written findings of fact” including “findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court’s rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities.” § 61.075(3)(d). The trial judge’s failure to include such findings of fact or explanations as to why this marital asset was not equitably distributed prevents this Court from reviewing the decision. See Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (reserving the right to “reverse on account of an absence of findings ... if the absence of the statutory findings frustrates this court’s appellate review”). As such, we reverse and remand to the trial court on this issue.
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
GUNTHER, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Broadfoot v. Rocio E. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)