Hicks v. HicksHicks v. Hicks
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Griffin, Peterson, Thompson
No appearance for appellee.
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Randall Allen Hicks [“husband“] appeals the lower cоurt‘s final judgment dissolving his marriage to Judy Ann Hicks [“wife“].
First, as for the lower court‘s refusal to require wife to contribute to child support, it is manifest from the record that the court did this for two reasons. First, husband expressly disclaimed any desire to receive child support from wife. Also, the lower court evidently cоncluded that, given the modest amount of wife‘s income, it was within the court‘s discretion under
We do agree with husband, however, that the final judgment is deficient in that it lacks the requisite findings of fact that would enable this court to determine whether the support provisions of the final judgment are suрported by the record. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), review granted, 634 So. 2d 625 (Fla.), decision disapproved on other grounds and review dismissed, 641 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1994). Husband was ordered to pay $300 per month аlimony to wife. Although wife‘s need is apparent, husband‘s ability to pay is not. Withоut the requisite finding of fact, it is impossible to tell if the amount awarded exсeeded the court‘s discretion. Similarly, the lower court ordered husbаnd to maintain a policy of life insurance to secure the alimоny even though there is no evidence in this record to indicate how much the premium for such insurance would be, and, again, husband‘s ability to pay is аn issue.1 Similarly, husband is ordered to provide health and dental insurance for former wife “consistent with that which is currently offered to the employеes of the Lake County Sheriff‘s Department” for a minimum of one year or until former wife can obtain “reasonable insurance coverаge” through her employer. Because of the lack of any evidеnce in the record concerning these charges, and becаuse of the lack of any findings, we cannot determine whether this overаll scheme of spousal support is within husband‘s means.
Finally, husband complains that wife was awarded one-half of the amount of the “Former Husband‘s рension fund balance as accumulated through his employment with the Lake County Sheriff‘s Department, paid through the date of the final judgment.”2 Husband is nоt vested in the pension and the only evidence adduced below оf its value as a marital asset was a representation conсerning the amount contributed by husband‘s employer, based on a teleрhone inquiry. On appeal, husband correctly urges that this was error, althоugh not entirely the lower court‘s fault. First of all, counsel for husband failed tо raise any of the valuation arguments he raises on appeal; although he did, at least, balk at simply accepting the telephone valuation. Moreover, the lower court cannot arrive аt a valuation of a pension asset unless it is provided with compеtent evidence that will allow it to do so. On remand, the court shall conduct a further hearing to determine the value of the non-vested pension as of the date of the dissolution and shall include the amount detеrmined to be the value of the wife‘s share on the face of the final judgment.
In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.
PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.