Young v. Young, 3D01-1999.
| Decision Date | 15 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D01-1999.,3D01-1999. |
| Citation | 816 So.2d 799 |
| Parties | Elbert L. YOUNG, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Norma P. YOUNG, Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Merlin & Hertz and Robert J. Merlin, Coral Gables, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Alan P. Byrd, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before FLETCHER, SHEVIN and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Elbert L. Young appeals an Order On Exceptions to Amended Report of General Master Dated April 10, 2001 asserting error in the court's alimony and pension plan awards. Norma P. Young cross-appeals attacking the court's recognition of the parties' purported settlement agreement. We reverse on appeal and affirm on cross-appeal.
We reverse the portion of the order that awards the former wife $1200 monthly as permanent periodic alimony. The general master's report contains no findings to support the alimony award. The court's adoption of the report, without any findings, is error. § 61.08, Fla. Stat. (2001); Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So.2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). On remand, the court shall reconsider the issue and make appropriate findings to justify any award.
The valuation of the marital and non-marital portions of the former husband's pension plan must also be reversed. The parties stipulated below to the present value of the pension; the sole dispute involved the value of the marital portion. The master's valuation reiterated former wife's counsel's unsupported argument regarding the value of the marital portion. However, the record demonstrates that the former wife presented no evidence to support her proposed valuation. The court's adoption of that valuation cannot be upheld in the absence of any evidence. Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So.2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Cervoni v. Cervoni, 715 So.2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Polley v. Polley, 588 So.2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). On remand, the trial court shall rehear the issue and enter a ruling supported by the evidence presented. After doing so, the court shall revisit the equitable distribution scheme as these valuations are a part thereof.
Turning to the former wife's cross-appeal, she asserts that the court erred in upholding an alleged agreement between the parties regarding the division of certain asserts. We affirm, as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Hector, 3D03-1561.
...without either a basis in the pleadings or the evidence, the order freezing the trust account proceeds is quashed. See Young v. Young, 816 So.2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); City of Miami Beach v. Swedroe, 788 So.2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Resil v. Resil, 755 So.2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA We further no......
-
Henry v. Lyons, 4D16-398.
...Nevertheless, the court erred in assigning a value to an asset in the absence of any supporting evidence. See Young v. Young , 816 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (finding that court's adoption of a valuation supported only by argument of counsel could not be upheld). As to this equitable......
- Schreiner v. Holland, 3D01-1396.
-
Trial and evidence
...in chart form).] A chart or argument presented by the family lawyer during opening or closing argument is not evidence. [ Young v. Young, 816 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (court’s adoption of valuations which just reiterated wife’s counsel’s unsupported argument regarding value of marital ......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...argument regarding the value of the marital property will not be upheld in the absence of supporting evidence. [ Young v. Young, 816 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Haddad v. Haddad, 686 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(findings in final judgment based only on lawyer closing argument is error;......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...by the evidence; it appears the trial court simply split the difference between the values presented by the parties); Young v. Young, 816 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (court’s adoption of values which just reiterated wife’s counsel’s unsupported argument regarding value of marital property......