Whelan v. WhelanWhelan v. Whelan
Christopher Whelan, the former husbаnd, appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage alleging error in the identification and valuation of assets, the unequal distribution of marital assets and
No court reporter was present during the dissolution trial of Christopher and Debra Whelan, and the parties have not agreed to a statement of the evidence or proceedings. Absent a trial transcript, this court may reverse only if an error of law appears on the face of the final judgment. Compton v. Compton, 701 So.2d 110, 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
The former husband‘s first point on appeal alleges error in thе trial court‘s failure to clearly identify and value marital and non-marital assets in the final judgment, аnd its unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities. We find no error in the trial court‘s finding the husband incurred “cеrtain liabilities and debts” after the parties separated, and its conclusion that those debts were not marital property and were not chargeable to the wife. The facе of the final judgment identifies those debts as financial obligations at four banks which totaled over $20,500. Absent a trial transcript, the husband has failed to establish error in the characterization оf these debts as non-marital, the valuation of these debts, or the distribution of these liabilities to the former husband.
The final judgment refers to only three marital assets: the marital residence and twо vehicles. The final judgment awards the husband‘s interest in the marital residence to the former wife without providing any valuation of this asset. Similarly, the parties’ two vehicles are distributed without any valuation of these assets. As this court has held, chapter 61 requires the final judgment of dissolution contain a list of marital assets to be distributed and “an `individual valuation of significant assets.‘” Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting
The former husband‘s second point on appeal alleges error in the trial court‘s finding him in contempt for failure tо discharge debts to a third party bank. The trial court found the former husband in contempt for his failure to abide by the court‘s previous order requiring him to make payment to Great Western Bank on a timely monthly basis. The court also determined the Great Western debt was a non-marital debt for which the former husband was solely responsible. The former husband‘s payment of the non-marital debt in this case is in the nature of settlement of property rights rather than alimony, support, or maintenance of the former wife. “If an obligation is in the nature of settlement of propеrty rights as opposed to alimony, support or maintenance of one to whom the duty is оwed, the contempt power of the court cannot be invoked.” Filan v. Filan, 549 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (citing Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). The enforcement
Finally, the former wife concedes thе trial court erred in failing to address the issue of the former husband‘s contact and access (visitation) with the parties’ two-year-old daughter. On remand, the issue of the former husband‘s contaсt and access with his daughter must be addressed.
The final judgment is reversed as to the distribution of marital assets and the finding of contempt, and remanded for findings regarding the value of marital assets and еquitable distribution of those assets, as well as provision for visitation.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.