Bussey v. Bussey, 92-960
| Decision Date | 15 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-960,92-960 |
| Citation | 611 So.2d 1354 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D291 Francis Frederick BUSSEY, Jr., Appellant, v. Jean A. BUSSEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gordon V. Frederick, Sanford, for appellant.
Andrea L. Cain and Donald P. Ewald of Cain & Ewald, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
This appeal concerns the effect of the trial court's failure to include values and marital/nonmarital designations in an equitable distribution award, and the propriety of an award of attorneys' fees.
The husband contends that he is unable to challenge the trial court's equitable distribution award because the final judgment does not include a specific value and marital/nonmarital designation for each asset. As a result, the husband argues, this court is unable to engage in meaningful review of the trial court's equitable distribution award.
Effective July 1, 1991, the legislature added subsection (3) to Chapter 61.075, Florida Statutes:
(3) ... 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 ... (Emphasis added)
The First DCA has held that failure to include a marital/nonmarital designation and a specific value for each asset requires reversal and remand. Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Dyson v. Dyson, 597 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Cf. Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) ().
In the instant case, the final judgment simply lists the assets awarded and liabilities assigned to each party but contains no findings regarding value and marital/nonmarital designation. Without these statutorily required findings, we are unable to review the fairness of the equitable distribution awards.
The husband also appeals the award of attorneys' fees to the wife based on his argument that the wife failed to prove her need and his ability to pay these fees. As to the wife's need, the record contains no conclusive evidence regarding her employment status at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Miller
...the parties (outright or by way of substitution of assets). See Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Until those findings are made, an appellate court cannot undertake......
-
Kelley v. Kelley, 93-2627
...appellate review. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), review dismissed, 641 So.2d 408 (Fla.1994); Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA As to the other issues raised, we conclude that the trial court committed......
-
Rosen v. Rosen
...in accordance with section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1993). Miller v. Miller, 625 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In addition, the trial court erred in awarding the husband a portion of the wife's disability income. The trial court ma......
-
Woodard v. Woodard, 92-2698
...was used for various family purchases). Such a designation is required by 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991). See also Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). As the court stated in Amato v. Amato, 596 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA The undisputed facts show that the wife deposited ......