Patino v. Patino
122 So. 3d 961
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Trial court failed to make explicit findings on all statutorily mandated alimony factors under §61.08(2).
- Final judgment contained findings but did not address four required alimony factors or provide requisite factual support.
- Equitable distribution findings were insufficient; the final judgment did not value each asset or specify each liability.
- Statutory requirements under §61.075(3) require identifying and valuing marital/non-marital assets and debts for review.
- Court remands for new findings and potential reexamination of attorneys’ fees if redistribution affects payor ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony factors: were all statutory factors addressed? | Husband argues trial court failed to consider all factors. | Wife contends court did consider the factors. | Remand for complete factual findings on all factors. |
| Asset/debt valuation: were assets and liabilities valued? | Husband asserts missing valuations. | Wife asserts valuations were adequately considered. | Remand to provide explicit valuations and identifications. |
| Attorneys’ fees: should fees be revisited after remand? | N/A | Redistribution may affect need/ability to pay; fees may be revisited. | Reversal of attorneys’ fees award to allow reexamination after remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lule v. Lule, 60 So.3d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (requires consideration of all §61.08(2) factors and factual findings)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 927 So.2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (mandates evaluation of economic factors with findings)
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (A failure to consider all mandated factors is reversible error)
- Koski v. Koski, 98 So.3d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing for lack of complete factor findings)
- Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reverses when final judgment tracks §61.08(2) but lacks findings)
- Fulmer v. Fulmer, 961 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (explains need for factual findings for review of distribution scheme)
- Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversible error when value/identification of assets debts are not stated)