Farghali v. Farghali

• Decision Date: 09 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4D14–1364.,4D14–1364.
• Parties: Moustafa FARGHALI, Appellant, v. Joyce FARGHALI, Appellee. Moustafa Farghali, Appellant, v. Joyce Farghali, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

187 So.3d 338

Moustafa FARGHALI, Appellant,
v.
Joyce FARGHALI, Appellee.

Moustafa Farghali, Appellant,
v.
Joyce Farghali, Appellee.

No. 4D14–1364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 9, 2016.

Troy William Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ronald K. Lantz, North Palm Beach, for appellee.

FORST, J.

Appellant Moustafa Farghali ("Husband") appeals two orders arising from his divorce from Appellee Joyce Farghali ("Wife"). Husband's two appeals have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion. We write first to address the need for proper preservation of appellate issues in equitable distribution cases. The remainder of the opinion will address the distribution of Husband's pension.

Case 14–1364

Husband's first assertion on appeal is that the trial court erred in its distribution of the marital property by failing to make specific factual findings as to the disposition of several of the couple's assets and liabilities. However, Husband did not provide a trial transcript for appellate review, nor did he alert the trial court to this alleged shortcoming in a motion for rehearing. The First District has held "a party is not entitled to complain that a judgment in a marital and family law case fails to contain sufficient findings unless that party raised the omission before the trial court in a motion for rehearing." Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ; see also David v. David, 58 So.3d 336, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ("[T]he husband failed to preserve this error for appellate review because he did not file a motion for rehearing in the trial court raising the alleged inadequacy of factual findings.").

Although we have not expressly adopted this rule before, we do so now. As the First District pointed out in Simmons,

A trial judge who is made aware of the fact that a required finding was omitted could easily redraft the judgment to include that finding. In contrast, a trial judge who assumes that the form of the judgment was acceptable and learns of the alleged deficiency only after the appeal has been concluded is not likely to be in a position to make the appropriate findings. It would be unrealistic to assume that a trial judge would remember, a year or so later, the value of a car or boat or some item of personal property that was included in an equitable distribution of property. In some cases, the trial courts would be required to begin the process anew, and that would only reward the party who failed to make a timely objection.

187 So.3d 340

Section 61.075(3)(b) requires the trial court to make a finding of the individual value of significant assets but it does not suggest that a failure to make such a finding is an issue that can be raised for the first time on

...