Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
KEITH J. ICE,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant,
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v.
CASE NO. 1D01-3184 & 1D02-1051
DENISE H. ICE,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed April 8, 2003.
An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Levy County.
Maurice V. Giunta, Judge.
Michael W. Jones, Esq., Gainesville, for Appellant.
Peter C.K. Enwall, Esq., Gainesville, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The former husband appeals the trial court's equitable distribution, alimony, and
attorney's fee awards in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. The former
wife cross-appeals the trial court's imputation of income to her in the amount of

$25,000. We reverse and remand with instructions.
The final judgment in this case fails to identify all of the parties' marital liabilities,
contrary to the requirements of section 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). Pursuant
to section 61.075(3)(c), a trial court must identify the marital liabilities and designate
which spouse shall be responsible for each. Here, the trial court, for purposes of
equitable distribution, valued the family corporation at $103,000, based upon the
former wife's expert's testimony. This $103,000 valuation included as a corporate
asset the $78,681 shareholders' loan, which the parties had taken out from the
corporation while the marriage was still intact. However, while the trial court valued
the corporation at $103,000, it failed to identify the loan as a marital liability and
designate which spouse would be responsible for such. The failure to identify the
nature and value of the marital liabilities constitutes reversible error and renders this
Court powerless to engage in meaningful appellate review. See Holmes v. Holmes,
709 So. 2d 166, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that the failure to make sufficient
findings regarding the value of property and identification of marital assets and debts
constitutes reversible error and requires remand for appropriate findings to be made);
see also Sayegh v. Sayegh, 777 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution and remand to the trial court
to make the necessary findings in accordance with section 61.075(3)(c). See Cook v.
2

Cook, 714 So. 2d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983,
986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Because the trial court is at liberty to adjust the overall
equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney's fee awards, we decline to address
appellant's other arguments on appeal. As to the issue on cross-appeal, we conclude
that the trial court erred in imputing a $25,000 salary to appellee. See Stewart v. Rich,
664 So. 2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that notwithstanding the fact that
the former wife had earned a law degree, the trial court erred in imputing income to the
former wife, as her degree had not translated into actual employment and income at the
time of the final hearing, and as the former wife had absolutely no history of earnings
and no track record).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.
3

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE