Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 3D00-1973.
| Decision Date | 15 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D00-1973.,3D00-1973. |
| Citation | 791 So.2d 584 |
| Parties | William G. BROADFOOT, Appellant, v. Rocio E. BROADFOOT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pimentel & Lopera and Zoila Pimentel, Miami, for appellant.
Babun & Torres and Lizette Babun, Miami, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and GREEN, JJ.
William G. Broadfoot appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The appellant husband challenges the permanent alimony award.
He argues that there should be a reversal because the trial court failed to make the findings required by subsection 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (2000). We decline to reverse on this basis.
The time to request findings is when the case is pending in the trial court. Reis v. Reis, 739 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Ascontec Consulting, Inc. v. Young, 714 So.2d 585, 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Presumably the need for findings will be brought out at the final hearing and also in connection with the submission of any proposed judgment. If the judgment is entered without required findings, then a motion for rehearing should be filed, requesting findings.
As a general rule, we decline to consider claims which were not presented in the first instance in the trial court. See, e.g., Rokicki v. Rokicki, 660 So.2d 362, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In this case there is no indication that the need for statutory findings was called to the attention of the trial court.
Where, as here, the basis for the award is reasonably clear and supported by the record, we decline to reverse on account of the absence of statutory findings. We do, of course, reserve the right to reverse on account of an absence of findings (whether the point was raised in the trial court or not) if the absence of the statutory findings frustrates this court's appellate review. See Levi v. Levi, 780 So.2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); McCarty v. McCarty, 710 So.2d 713, 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
In this case the parties were married for twenty-nine years and the husband concedes that a permanent alimony award was appropriate. While he complains about the amount of the award, the amount is consistent with the evidence presented and within the scope of the court's discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
The husband next contends that the trial court erroneously skewed the equitable distribution in favor of the wife without an explanation, as contemplated by the equitable distribution statute. See § 61.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). Again, we see no indication that this provision of the statute was called to the attention of the trial court.
The husband's more specific complaint is that he was required to assume about $20,000 more of the parties' credit card debt than was the wife. While that is true, this is offset by the fact that the trial court let each party keep his or her own retirement plan. The husband's retirement plan was worth about $20,000 more than that of the wife, and both plans were marital assets. The proceeds from the sale of the marital home were divided equally between the parties. It thus appears that the equitable distribution was approximately equal or at most, slightly in favor of the wife. The award was within permissible discretion.
The husband argues that when the marital home was listed for sale, it was necessary to pay for repairs to the roof and water heater in the amount of $6,550. The husband testified that he obtained the funds for this repair from his parents. He contended that he was entitled to a special equity. We agree that credit should have been given for those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. Fox
...in original) (quoting Wolfe v. Nazaire , 758 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ). In a footnote, we cited Broadfoot v. Broadfoot , 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ; and Mathieu v. Mathieu , 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) as having reached the opposite conclusion. Id. at 950 n.3 ; see a......
-
Alpha v. Alpha, 5D03-1013.
...v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Killius v. Killius, 701 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). 3. See Vick v. Vick, 675 So.2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). 4. Florida law holds otherwise. See § 61.075, Fla. Stat.; Ruberg ......
-
Engle v. Engle
...case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing."); Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that the former husband failed to preserve his challenge to the trial court's failure to make the requisite finding......
-
Sibley v. Sibley
...L.R.P. 12.615 (2002), does not present harmful error. Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 834 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). 6. There was also an agreement regarding the payment of tuition for the children at private schools and college. Those issu......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...repairs required to sell a home are expenses of sale and should be credited to the party paying them. [ Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, PROPERTY ISSUES §15:143 Florida Family Law and Practice 15-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (where husband obtained money from his pare......
-
We're back: the appellate court said you didn't find anything.
...that a motion for rehearing is required to preserve the issue for appeal--Fourth District case law conflicts. In Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the court explained this rule of unpreserved error by stating findings are to be requested at the trial level, pre......
-
Navigating With a New Map: Impact of Changes to the District Courts of Appeal Territorial Boundaries.
...in family law cases. The Third District Court of Appeal issued the seminal opinion in this line of cases in Broad-foot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), in which it found the husband had failed to preserve the issue for appeal by failing to raise them in a motion for rehearin......