Schomburg v. Schomburg, 2D02-3473.
| Decision Date | 07 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D02-3473.,2D02-3473. |
| Citation | 845 So.2d 257 |
| Parties | Ana E. SCHOMBURG, Appellant, v. Andreas H.W. SCHOMBURG, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Garry Pierrot of the Law Offices of Frederick C. Kramer, Marco Island, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.
Ana E. Schomburg appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Andreas H.W. Schomburg. She contends the trial court erred by making an unequal distribution of marital assets, by splitting the primary residential custody of the two minor children between the parents, by failing to make a child support determination, by failing to award her alimony or explain why she was not entitled to any, and by failing to award her attorney's fees and costs. We affirm the equitable distribution scheme and residential custody award, finding no abuse of discretion. However, because the final judgment fails to address the issues of alimony and general attorney's fees and costs,1 we reverse and direct the court to make those determinations.
The parties were married on June 3, 1977. Mrs. Schomburg petitioned for dissolution of marriage in July 2001, and Mr. Schomburg counterpetitioned shortly thereafter. At the time of the filings the parties had been married twenty-four years. Because of the long term of the marriage, there is an initial presumption that permanent alimony is proper. Additionally, the trial court is required to support its alimony decisions with factual findings. § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); Milo v. Milo, 718 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (); Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (same). This is especially necessary in the current case to overcome the presumption in favor of alimony that arose from the long term of the marriage. Because the final judgment contains no mention of the alimony issue, we remand for further proceedings. Staton v. Staton, 710 So.2d 744, 745-46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
The final judgment also did not address Mrs. Schomburg's claim for attorney's fees. We therefore remand with instructions that the trial court resolve this issue. Perrin, 795 So.2d at 1024 ().
The final judgment reserved jurisdiction to decide child support. Because we must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Wright
...McCants v. McCants, 984 So.2d 678, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (recognizing eighteen-year marriage as long term); Schomburg v. Schomburg, 845 So.2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Because of the long term of the marriage, there is an initial presumption that permanent alimony is proper.”). The for......
-
Smith v. Smith, 2D04-4911.
...party. The court may consider any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. See also Schomburg v. Schomburg, 845 So.2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So.2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We remand and direct the trial court to make the factual ......
-
Austin v. Austin
...alimony. See Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So.2d 672, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (marriage of over twenty-one years); Schomburg v. Schomburg, 845 So.2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (marriage of twenty-four years). To support its alimony determination, the trial court must include specific findings o......
-
Williams v. Williams, 2D04-5485.
...support its alimony decision by including findings of fact in the final judgment. § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Schomburg v. Schomburg, 845 So.2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The requirement that the final judgment contain specific findings of fact is to facilitate meaningful appellate rev......