Farley v. Farley, 2D00-5346.
| Decision Date | 05 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-5346.,2D00-5346. |
| Citation | 800 So.2d 710 |
| Parties | Patricia A. FARLEY, Appellant, v. Emanuel Dean FARLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary A. Hewetson of Gary A. Hewetson, P.A., Largo, for Appellant.
Carl T. Boake and Kathy H. Czepiel of the Law Offices of Wallace, Finck, Boake & Colclough, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
Patricia A. Farley (the wife) appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage from Emanuel Dean Farley (the husband). The wife correctly contends that the trial court erred in failing to make statutorily required findings to support its award of alimony and in failing to consider the evidence which was presented concerning tax implications of the alimony award. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse.
Through mediation the parties were able to reach a partial settlement in this case. The issues which were reserved for trial court resolution were (1) the amount of permanent alimony the husband should pay to the wife, (2) the amount of life insurance the husband should provide the wife for the purpose of securing payment of his alimony obligation, and (3) whether the wife was entitled to payment of her attorney's fees, suit money, and court costs.
Section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides as follows:
Failure to include findings of fact as required by section 61.08 is reversible error. Milo v. Milo, 718 So.2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So.2d 624, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In this case, the final judgment does not contain any findings regarding factors (a) to (f) as enumerated in section 61.08(2). In fact, the final judgment is simply a recitation of the court's legal findings without any supporting findings of fact. Without such findings, it is impossible for this court to conduct an adequate review of the alimony award.
The wife also argues that the trial court erred in failing to consider the tax implications of the alimony award. It is error for the trial court to fail to consider tax implications of an alimony award when such evidence is presented. Miller v. Miller, 625 So.2d 1320, 1321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see Lutgert v. Lutgert, 362 So.2d 58, 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
. While the trial court may have considered the tax implications in awarding alimony in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freilich v. Freilich
...alimony and lump sum alimony.") (citations omitted); Parenteau v. Parenteau, 795 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). 3. See Farley v. Farley, 800 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) (requiring the trial court to include findings of fact in the final judgment relative to ......
-
Engle v. Engle
...818 So. 2d 711, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing for failure to make findings required by section 61.08(2) ); Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("Failure to include findings of fact as required by section 61.08 is reversible error."); Milo v. Milo, 718 So. 2d 343, 34......
-
Esaw v. Esaw
...see § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. "Failure to include findings of fact as required by section 61.08 is reversible error." Farley v. Farley, 800 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The purpose of these findings "is to assist the appellate court in providing a meaningful review." Milo, 718 So.2d at A......
-
Lostaglio v. Lostaglio
...take into consideration the tax treatment and consequences of the alimony award where there is evidence of such (citing Farley v. Farley, 800 So.2d 710, 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) )).5 Miller v. Miller, 466 So.2d 356, 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (reiterating that a trial court may include a reasona......