Henin v. Henin, 5D99-1457.
| Decision Date | 06 October 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D99-1457.,5D99-1457. |
| Parties | Maria Teresa HENIN, Appellant, v. Jerome HENIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark S. Troum, of Chartered Law Offices of Troum & Wallsh, Winter Park, for Appellant.
Franz F. Springmann, of Barnett, Barclay & Springmann, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
Maria Teresa Henin ["wife"] appeals the portions of a final judgment of dissolution dealing with permanent alimony, equitable distribution and child custody. We find that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to award primary residential responsibility for the parties' son to husband. However, we find multiple defects in the final judgment pertaining to financial issues.
Wife complains that the trial court made no oral findings at the close of evidence, requested a proposed judgment from each party and then signed with only one change to the verbatim proposed judgment of husband. Although this is not in and of itself error, under the circumstances of this case, it does heighten our concern about the errors and omissions contained in the final judgment.
First, the trial court failed to make sufficient findings regarding its equitable distribution scheme. Wife is correct that the final judgment of dissolution fails to identify all the marital assets and fails to include valuations of the marital assets and liabilities as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1997). This court has consistently reversed final judgments in which the court has failed to make the requisite findings regarding an equitable distribution. See, e.g., Calderon v. Calderon, 730 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
; Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Miller v. Miller, 625 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The judgment did find that "on the date of filing there was approximately $6,000.00 in marital funds, stocks and other equities in possession of the Husband...." but we can find no support for this figure in the record.1 Husband was excused from accounting for the $2,500 in insurance proceeds received for the theft of wife's jewelry. He was not required to account for the $12,000 in rent the parties earned on the Park Lake Condominium.
The final order references husband's exhibit 10, which is attached to the final judgment, but the figures on exhibit 10 appear inconsistent with the figures reached by the trial court. Certain items are included for which husband is not entitled to reimbursement, such as the mortgage on the Asbury property. There are no rental adjustments.
Additionally, the wife was charged a net sales price of $78,700 for the Park Lake condominium, instead of the $70,000 less commission shown on husband's 1996 financial affidavit.2 It is unclear where the trial court got the $78,700 figure shown on the final judgment, although it may be the 1999 assessed value, less the commission which will presumably go to husband. The trial court should be consistent in the valuation dates, or explain the disparity.
Wife does appear to be chargeable with one-half of the fair rental value of her exclusive occupancy of the Asbury property since it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alpha v. Alpha, 5D03-1013.
...Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Gregoire v. Gregoire, 615 So.2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). 21. See Henin v. Henin, 767 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). 22. See § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat.; Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989); Richardson v. Richardson, 722 So.2d 280 ......
-
Matajek v. Skowronska
...abilities is vital to determining the proper amount of permanent alimony. Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d at 742; accord Henin v. Henin, 767 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). These findings are necessary to establish "an amount sufficient to meet the former wife's reasonable needs measured by......
-
Hill v. Hooten, 5D00-1095.
...hearing, the trial court's failure to set forth findings of fact in the dissolution judgment required reversal). Accord Henin v. Henin, 767 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). In any event, the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony must be reversed because the parties failed to present ......
-
Rotolante v. Rotolante
...Inclusion of these earnings in the wife's income was mandated by section 61.30(2)(a)(10) of the Florida Statutes. See Henin v. Henin, 767 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(holding wife was chargeable with one-half of the fair rental value of her exclusive occupancy of property since it was not......
-
Alimony and support
...Hooten, 776 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (error to deny alimony without findings with regard to statutory factors); Henin v. Henin, 767 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (denial of permanent periodic alimony reversed, where trial court made no findings as to husband’s income and statutory ......