Wright v. Wright
135 So. 3d 1142
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- The parties were married 18 years, have four children (three minors at final hearing), and divorce proceedings addressed equitable distribution, alimony, and child support.
- The former husband earns about $177,000 annually and the former wife about $109,000; the court denied permanent alimony due to lack of proven need.
- The court stated it would address alimony factors only if need was proven at trial, and did not issue the required 61.08 findings.
- The marriage is classified as long-term (18 years), which creates a presumption in favor of permanent alimony if a need is shown.
- The record suggested potential inconsistencies in the final judgment regarding the allocation of utility costs at the marital residence, creating ambiguity.
- On appeal, the court reversed the alimony denial for lack of factual findings, remanded for findings on all 61.08(2) factors, and noted potential need to reconsider child support if alimony changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony findings under 61.08 | Wright contends permanent alimony is warranted but the court failed to make required 61.08(2) findings. | Wright argues no need shown; the court correctly denied alimony without detailed findings. | Reversed; remand for explicit 61.08(2) findings. |
| Ambiguities in final judgment regarding utilities | Wright asserts the judgment requires her to both bear and split utilities, creating inconsistency. | Wright's position challenges the clarity of allocations; the record supports reconsideration. | Remanded for clarification of utilities provisions. |
| Impact of missing findings on appeal | Lack of enumerated factual findings impedes meaningful appellate review of alimony decision. | Not expressly stated, but implied that findings are necessary for review. | Remand to add necessary findings, with possible reopening of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (requires consideration of multiple 61.08 factors in alimony determinations)
- Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (failure to make findings can be reversible error)
- Hill v. Hooten, 776 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (finding requirement necessary for review)
- Beasley v. Beasley, 717 So.2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (findings of fact required in alimony determinations)
- Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (need for detailed factual findings on alimony)
- McCants v. McCants, 984 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (long-term marriage presumption for permanent alimony when need shown)
- Sola v. Sola, 940 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reconsideration of awards in light of alimony changes)
- Sellers v. Sellers, 68 So.3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remand to address initial presumption of permanent alimony)
- Parenteau v. Parenteau, 795 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (remand for clarification and findings on unresolved issues)
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (purpose of findings of fact in divorce cases)