Strickland v. Strickland, 89-02530
| Decision Date | 26 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-02530,89-02530 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2424 Margaret Jeanette STRICKLAND, Appellant, v. Norman STRICKLAND, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marshall G. Slaughter, Winter Haven, for appellant.
Norman Strickland, pro se.
Margaret Strickland (wife) challenges the final order of dissolution of marriage based on the ground that she did not receive an equitable share of the marital assets. We reverse because the record accompanying this appeal reflects that the trial judge failed to complete the rulings necessary to accord the parties a true equitable distribution of the marital assets.
This is a marriage of twenty-three years, during which all of the marital assets were acquired. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that each partner to a marriage is entitled to a fair share of the assets acquired during marriage. While the court is not required to make an equal division, there has to be some logic and justification for the division. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Furthermore, this court has held that in certain situations regarding equitable distribution, the trial court should make findings of fact to support the distribution. See Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In Clemson, the trial court failed to distribute all the assets that were discussed at trial, and also failed to make any findings supporting the distribution that was made. While this court does not mandate that the trial court make specific findings in every case, it notes that in certain situations, such findings are necessary for proper appellate review. Id. at 78.
In the instant case, the judgment does not provide any findings of fact to support the distribution of marital assets. Additionally, the judgment is silent as to certain assets that were discussed at trial. A review of the record supports the fact the wife has an interest in Strickland's Auto Electric, the two notes receivable, and the GMC truck.
Lastly, we note that the reduction of periodic permanent alimony awarded the wife is unsupported by the record. See Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Therefore, we reverse and set aside the equitable distribution and the award of permanent alimony to the wife, and remand for further proceedings and a new order addressing distribution of all the marital assets. Furthermore, we urge the trial court, in its review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. Armstrong, s. 92-1102
...valuate or distribute; we thus remand for the court to provide valuations for these items and distribute same. See Strickland v. Strickland, 567 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (where judgment is silent as to certain assets that were discussed at trial, cause must be remanded for further proce......
-
Burston v. Burston, 92-00254
...equity, and its contents to the husband and denied the wife's request for alimony. As this court noted in Strickland v. Strickland, 567 So.2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), which also involved a long term marriage, The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that each partner to a marriage is en......
-
WILDTRAUT v. WILDTRAUT, 2D99-4895.
...So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved of on other grounds, Boyett v. Boyett, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997); Strickland v. Strickland, 567 So.2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (noting that trial court need not make findings of fact in every case, but such findings are frequently necessary ......
-
Lavelle v. Lavelle, 93-02113
...findings setting forth the rationale for the distribution of marital assets. Sec. 61.075(3), Fla.Stat. (1991); Strickland v. Strickland, 567 So.2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In the absence of equitable factors compelling a different result, the division of marital assets should be substantiall......