John Randall WINNEY, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Jayme Carol WINNEY, Former Wife, Appellee.
No. 1D07-2960.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 21, 2008.
979 So. 2d 396
LEWIS, J.
LEWIS, J.
John Randall Winney, Appellant, seeks review of a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Jayme Carol Winney, Appеllee. Appellant challenges the trial court‘s rulings regarding primary physical residency of the parties’ minor child, child support, alimony, life insurance as security for child support, and the distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities. We affirm the portions of the final judgment regarding primary physical residеncy and the award of child support without further discussion. We agree with Appellant that the trial court erred in failing to make the required factual findings to support the requirement that Appellant obtain life insurance as security for child support. However, because this error was harmless, we affirm that portion of the final judgment as well. We also agree with Appellant that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to include the required factual findings to support the alimony award and the distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities. On the record before us, we cannot say this error was harmless. Thereforе, we reverse the portions of the final judgment concerning alimony and equitable distribution and remand for entry of factual findings and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The basic facts regarding the parties’ history together are undisputed. Before the parties met, Appellant acquired and livеd on a tract of real property in Middleburg, Florida. He also owned some items of personal property including a mobile home, a motorcycle, a bedroom suite, and a washing machine. When the parties met, Appellee was attending stenography school with the hope of bеcoming a court reporter. At some point during the parties’ relationship, but before they were married, Appellee quit stenography school and began working full-time. In February 2000, Appellee moved in with Appellant. Later in 2000, a new mobile home was purchased, and the parties began to live in it. Appellant traded in his older mobile home to pay part of the price of the newer home. The parties married on July 18, 2001, and continued living in the new mobile home on Appellant‘s previously-acquired real property in Middleburg, Florida. On the date of the marriage, Appellant still owed a substantial amount toward the primary mortgage on the home. The parties lived in the home together until November 2005, when Appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. During the marriage, the parties had acquired various debts and items of personal property. Among the debts incurred during the marriage was an obligation to Volkswagen for a lease on a 2006 Passat and a $50,000.00 home equity line of credit. While the parties were separated, Appellee quit her full-time job and returned to stenography school while working part-time as a waitress. The remaining relevant facts are in dispute.
Appellаnt contested Appellee‘s request for alimony and her claims that part of the marital home was marital property. He argued that she voluntarily quit stenography school and began to work full-time before the marriage.1 He further argued that because Appellee had voluntarily quit her full-time jоb to return to school, full-time income should be imputed to her. Appellant also submitted a financial affidavit reflecting that his expenses exceeded his income. As part of his financial disclosures, Appellant produced evidence that his employer provided basic life insurance in thе amount of $97,400.00 at no cost to him and that he had elected to receive supplemental life insurance in the amount of $146,000 for a cost of $5.39 per month. As to the marital home, Appellant disputed Appellee‘s characterization of the changes to the home as substantial improvements. He contended that the marital home, along with any assets bought with the home equity line of credit, was his nonmarital property.
After hearing voluminous testimony regarding the contested issues of equitable distribution, alimony, and child support, the trial court entered an order with few findings related to these issues. Specifically, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay Appellee rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $300.00 per month for a period of twenty-four months, but the only finding to support this award was that Appellee “was participating in a trade school education program which was intеrrupted by the marriage.” The trial court also ordered Appellant to maintain a life insurance policy with death benefits in the amount of $100,000.00, as security for child support, without making any findings as to the necessity or affordability of life insurance. In devising a scheme of equitable distribution, the trial court noted that each party was awarded one-half of the net value of the marital assets and liabilities, but it did not make findings as to which assets were marital and which were nonmarital. The trial court also failed to distribute all of the parties’ liabilities. Most notably, the court neglected to mention the debt to Volkswagen. After distributing some of the parties’ liabilities, the court ordered each party to be responsible for his or her “remaining personal debt, including credit card debt” but did not explain
A trial court‘s failure to make adequate factual findings in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage is typically reversible error because, in most circumstances, this failure precludes meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So. 2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This Court has held that a trial court must make findings to address speсific issues when awarding alimony, ordering a party to carry life insurance, and devising an equitable distribution scheme. Schoditsch v. Schoditsch, 888 So. 2d 709, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (addressing life insurance as security); Shoffner, 744 So. 2d at 1158 (addressing alimony and equitable distribution).
The requirement that trial courts make certain findings is driven by specific statutory mandates as well as the need for a sufficient basis for appellate review. When awarding alimony, a trial court must make findings as to the recipient‘s need and the obligor‘s ability to pay, Walsh, 600 So. 2d at 1223, and these findings must reflect a consideration of all relevant economic factors, as provided in
(a) Clеar identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests;
(b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each;
(c) Identification of the marital liabilities and designation of which spouse should be responsible for each liability;
(d) Any other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court‘s rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities.
Id. In making these findings, trial courts must bear in mind that any asset or liability acquired before the marriage is nonmarital and belongs to thе party who acquired it.
However, inadequate factual findings in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage sometimes constitute harmless error. See Hughes v. Hughes, 955 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Fulmer v. Fulmer, 961 So. 2d 1081, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (Kahn, J. concurring). In the instant case, the trial court‘s error in neglecting to include the required findings to support its order that Appellant maintain life insurance as security for child support was harmless because Appellant presented undisputed evidenсe that, at the time of trial, he had life insurance for more than the ordered amount. This already existing life insurance policy is sufficient to satisfy the trial court‘s order, so long as Appellant names the parties’ minor child as the sole and irrevocable beneficiary thereon. In contrast, we cannot conclude, on the record before us, that the trial court‘s failure to make the statutorily required factual findings regarding alimony and equitable distribution was harmless.
The parties presented conflicting evidence relevant to the alimony and equitable distribution determinations. It is unclear from the final judgment how the trial court resolved these conflicts. In particular, the final judgment does not reveal how the trial court arrived at the sum of $300.00 per month for alimony and whether the trial court considered Appellant‘s ability to pay that amount. On appeal, Appellant contends that he doеs not have the ability to pay alimony and points to his financial affidavit for support. Of course, this Court is not in a position to reach a conclusion as to that contention. Therefore, on remand, the trial court should make findings that reflect its consideration of whether Appellee needs $300.00 per month in alimony and whether Appellant has the ability to pay that amount, consistent with the requirements of
The area of the final judgment addressing equitable distribution suffers similar defects. It is unclear which assets the trial court considered marital and which assets it considered nonmarital. Similarly, the trial court failed to classify the parties’ debts as marital and nonmarital and altogether neglected to address the debt to Volkswagen. We cannot begin to determine whether the trial court arrived at the correct result in its distribution of assets and liabilities because the final judgment does not provide the basic starting point of determining which assets were marital and which were nonmarital. In particular, it is cleаr that some portion of the marital home was nonmarital property, and yet, the trial court did not designate what portion of the home‘s value was a marital asset.2 Additionally, we note that the requirement that each party pay his or her own “personal debt” is meaningless without an accоmpanying classification of which debt is marital and which is nonmarital.
Because the trial court‘s decisions concerning alimony and equitable distribution
Appellee filed a motion for appellate attorney‘s fees, and Appellant filed no response. Based on the financial information provided in the record, it appears that Appellee has a need for fees and that Appellant has an ability to pay them. However, because the ultimate determination on this issue requires a finding of fact, Appellee‘s motion is provisionally grаnted, subject to verification at the trial level of the respective parties’ need and ability to pay. See Davis v. Davis, 584 So. 2d 1117, 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). On remand, the trial court should assess what amount, if any, Appellee should receive in attorney‘s fees in accordance with the rationale of Dresser v. Dresser, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BROWNING, C.J., and HAWKES, J., concur.