Buckalew v. Buckalew

• Decision Date: 27 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4D14–2671.,4D14–2671.
• Parties: Charles O. BUCKALEW, Appellant, v. Marina BUCKALEW, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

197 So.3d 148

Charles O. BUCKALEW, Appellant,

v.Marina BUCKALEW, Appellee.

No. 4D14–2671.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 27, 2016.

Michael A. Hymowitz of Hymowitz Law Firm, Sunrise (withdrawn as counsel after filing brief), for appellant/cross-appellee.

Barry S. Franklin of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., Aventura, for appellee/cross-appellant.

KLINGENSMITH, J.

In this appeal and cross-appeal, Charles O. Buckalew (“appellant”) challenges both the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage as well as its final order denying his and Marina Buckalew's (“appellee”) objections to the final judgment. Appellee raises her own issues with these decisions. We write only to address the trial court's equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities, and reverse and remand in light of the court's failure to make required findings of fact in the final judgment.

“The standard of review of a trial court's determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion. Distribution of marital assets and liabilities must be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence.” Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So.2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citations omitted).

Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate's written findings of fact, which failed to identify the marital or non-marital status of each asset and liability, and by failing to ascribe a value for those assets and liabilities included in the equitable distribution scheme, as required by section 61.075(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (2014). On those two points, we agree.

Section 61.075(1) states, in pertinent part:

(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties ... the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities, and in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors....

§ 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).

This provision goes on to list ten factors the trial court should consider in determining equitable distribution. Id. § 61.075(1)(a)-(j). Section 61.075(3) states:

(3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in subsection (1). The distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include specific written findings of fact as to the following:

(a) Clear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests;

(b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset;

(c) Identification of the marital liabilities and designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability;

(d) Any other 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.

Id. § 61.075(3) (emphasis added).

As we have stated in the past, when:

there is no stipulation between parties, “[t]he distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include specific written findings of fact as to” the ownership interests of nonmarital property, value of marital property and to which spouse it is designated, designation of identified marital liabilities, and all other relevant findings.

Vitro v. Vitro, 122 So.3d 382, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting § 61.075(3)(a)-(d) ).

In this case, the trial court made three errors relating to its equitable distribution of the parties' assets. First, it failed to clearly identify any of the assets and liabilities in the equitable distribution scheme as marital or non-marital, with the exception of one real estate parcel (referred to...