Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Having a court reporter present at a trial in your Florida divorce case may be important to your right to appeal. Many appellate cases have been dismissed or not substantively considered due to a lack of a transcript. As stated in Rojas v. Otero, 3D23-1113 (Fla. 3d DCA November 13, 2024): “Consequently, where, as here, there is no transcript from the bench trial below, we are precluded from reviewing factual issues. [. . .] However, even without a trial transcript, reversal is appropriate ‘where an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment.’”

After a trial was held in the parties’ divorce case, the former wife was awarded certain property and alimony. The former husband contended the judgment was inconsistent and that his inherited property was incorrectly classified as marital property, and he appealed. He did not provide a transcript of the final hearing, so the appellate court was restricted to reviewing any deficiencies in the final judgment which were apparent.

First with regard to the former husband’s claim that his inherited property was incorrectly classified as marital, the appellate court affirmed because this was a factual issue that could not be reviewed without a transcript. The court did, however, consider five deficiencies the former husband alleged were clear on the face of the judgment.

The court held “First, he asserts that the trial court erred in distributing the Marital Home solely to Former Wife without making any specific findings and awarding exclusive use and possession of the home without specifying a time period. We agree. The Judgment’s award of the Marital Home to Former Wife contains none of the requisite factual findings under section 61.075(1)(a)-(j) to substantiate the unequal distribution.”

Next, the court held “Second, Former Husband asserts that the trial court was unclear when it awarded Former Wife assets it found were dissipated from the Joint Marital Account. We agree. The Judgment awards Former Wife equitable distribution of all money deposited in the Joint Marital Account that Former Husband had ‘later dissipated.’ But the court also identifies the ‘[p]artial amount of dissipated assets’ as having ‘amounted to but not limited to: $229,497.00’ and awards Former Wife ‘at least 50% of the partial amount of dissipated assets . . . in the amount of $114,748.50.’ Section 61.075(3)(a) requires the trial court to make ‘written findings of fact as to the . . . [c]lear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests.’ The court must also identify marital assets and designate ‘which spouse shall be entitled to each asset.’ § 61.075(3)(b). Awarding at least a 50% interest does not make clear whether Former Wife receives a half interest in the dissipated assets or a greater amount.”

“Third, Former Husband argues that the trial court’s award to Former Wife of ‘at least 50% of the current fair market value’ of the 3rd Street and 17th Place properties is ambiguous and constitutes a facial error. We agree. The Judgment is ambiguous for the same reasons as is the amount in dissipated assets from the Joint Marital Account. The usage of ‘at least’ is not a sufficiently “clear identification” of ownership interests under section 61.075(3). Fourth, Former Husband contends that the trial court’s language in the Judgment regarding the marital home is contradictory, constituting facial error. The trial court ordered that the property in its entirety is distributed to Former Wife. But later, the Judgment referred to ‘Wife’s 50% interest in all four (4) properties.’ It is unclear whether Former Wife was awarded full interest or half interest in the marital home.”

Finally, the court concluded that the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction to modify the final judgment was erroneous, and the parties agreed. Therefore this was reversed. Schedule your meeting with a Miami family lawyer for specific advice about your case.