MARCEE LIBERATORE, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES H. LIBERATORE, 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.
Marcee Liberatore appeals an equitable distribution order, arguing the trial court violated the appellate court's previous mandate on remand. The court agrees and reverses, finding that the trial court deviated from appellate instructions by addressing additional issues beyond those specified in the mandate.
Yes. The trial court violated the appellate mandate by straying from the specified directions and addressing additional issues regarding the post-judgment sale of the marital residence that were not part of the appellate court's instructions.
[1] A lower court must strictly follow the instructions of an appellate court mandate.
[2] A lower court's function in implementing the directions in an appellate court's mandate is purely ministerial, and the court may not deviate from those instructions.
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“On remand, a lower court must strictly follow the instructions of an appellate court mandate.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that trial courts must comply with appellate mandates without deviation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is the second appeal in a divorce case. In the initial appeal, the court found the trial court erred in distributing depleted marital assets with…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Marcee Liberatore appeals an order that disbursed certain marital assets and liabilities, arguing that it violated this Court’s mandate in Liberatore v. Liberatore, 101 So.3d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). We agree, and thus, reverse.
In the initial appeal, this Court addressed whether the trial court erred in distributing depleted marital assets in an equitable distribution scheme without a finding of misconduct. We found that the *77trial court erred, and reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the distribution scheme to address this issue.
On remand, a lower court must strictly follow the instructions of an appellate court mandate. See, e.g., Amir v. Amir, 925 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Akins v. Akins, 839 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (finding that the trial court “properly recognized, in connection with the issue raised by former husband, that it was not authorized to deviate from the terms of the appellate court’s instructions”). Accordingly, a lower court’s function in implementing the directions in an appellate court’s mandate are purely ministerial, and the court may not deviate from those instructions. Amir, 925 So.2d at 1050.
Typically, when a lower court commits reversible error in valuing or distributing marital assets, the entire distribution plan must be reversed and reconsidered on remand. See Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So.2d 155, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). This is because each division and distribution of a marital asset and liability is interrelated to form an overall scheme fair to both parties. See Kincart v. Kincart, 572 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). However, in some instances, an error in an equitable distribution plan can be corrected in isolation; in those circumstances, an appellate court may direct the lower court to correct only that error in isolation. Cf. Tilchin v. Tilchin, 51 So.3d 596, 597-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
Even if our previous mandate could be read as instructing the lower court to correct only the issue of the depleted marital assets, the court strayed from our directions. At the behest of Mr. Liberatore, the lower court addressed issues relating to the post-judgment sale of the martial residence while reconsidering the distribution of the depleted marital assets. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of the entire equitable scheme.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Akins v. Akins, 839 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Tilchin v. Tilchin, 51 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Kincart v. Kincart, 572 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Ofer M. Amir v. Amir, 925 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Marcee Liberatore v. Liberatore, 101 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)