Charles Henry PREST, Appellant,
v.
Patricia Faye TRACY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Joryn Jenkins of Joryn Jenkins, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
David T. Weisbrod, Tampa, for Appellee.
PARKER, Judge.
Chаrles Henry Prest (husband) appeals the second amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage, dissolving his marriаge to Patricia Faye Tracy (wife), and the order amending the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We аffirm that portion of the order amending the final judgment that requires the husband to maintain his existing life insurance policies as security for his alimony obligation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in making this award. See Sobelman v. Sobelman,
In fashioning an equitable distribution scheme, the trial court is required to set apart to each spouse his or her non-marital assets and liabilities because those are not subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court must then identify and value the *539 marital assets and distribute those equitably between the parties. Id. See also Robertson v. Robertson,
On thе date of dissolution in 1998, the husband was seventy-seven years old and the wife was sixty-six. The couple had married in 1993 and lived together for a little over four years before separating. As is to be expected in a mаrriage this late in life, the parties each entered the marriage with assets obtained prior to the marriage. The evidence established that the husband owned a mobile home, two cars, and various household furnishings prior to the marriage. He received income from a pension plan in which he was сompletely vested prior to the marriage, from Social Security, and from a part-time job as a maintenance man. He had his own checking account and maintained cash savings in a safe. The evidence established that the wife owned a car and various household furnishings prior to the marriage. She received income from Social Security and from a part-time job as a nanny. She had her own checking and savings accounts and maintained additional cash savings in a safe.
After the marriage, the рarties lived in the husband's mobile home. They opened a joint checking account into which the husband deposited his pension and Social Security payments. The parties paid all their household expenses from this joint checking account. The husband maintained his earnings from his job separately, and the wife maintained both her earnings and her Social Security payments separately. During the marriage, the рarties purchased additional household furnishings and made some improvements to the mobile home. In addition, the wife sold her car during the marriage and purchased a newer one, paying for it in part with funds borrowed from the husband.
In fashioning its equitable distribution scheme, the trial court awarded the husband the two cars he оwned prior to the marriage and a bureau he owned prior to the marriage. The trial court awarded the wife the mobile home owned by the husband prior to the marriage and the vehicle purchased during the marriage. The trial court did not distribute the parties' household furnishings, other than the husband's bureau, or the joint сhecking account. The trial court never identified or set apart the parties' nonmarital assеts prior to distribution as required by section 61.075(1). The second amended final judgment does not identify the husband's mobile hоme and two cars as nonmarital property, nor does it provide any explanation as to hоw these items became marital property subject to equitable distribution. The trial court's failure to identify and separate the nonmarital assets from the marital assets prior to distribution constitutes reversiblе error. Moreover, the second amended final judgment contains no findings as to the value of the assets that were indisputably marital property, such as the majority of the household furnishings, the car purchasеd during the marriage, and the parties' joint checking account. The failure to identify and value the maritаl assets also constitutes reversible error.
While the trial court has broad discretion in fashioning an equitable distribution scheme, the trial court must support its *540 distribution with specific factual findings. See § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). In this case, the lack of the required statutory findings as to which assets were marital and nonmarital and as to the value of the various marital assets makes review of the trial court's equitable distribution scheme impossible. See Staton,
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.