Coleman v. Bland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coleman v. Bland

73 So. 3d 795, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15174, 2011 WL 4405759

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 2011

DocketNo. 5D10-1326

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 73 So. 3d 795 (Coleman v. Bland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coleman v. Bland, 73 So. 3d 795, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15174, 2011 WL 4405759 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Arvita M. Coleman [“Former Wife”] appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Michael Bland [“Former Husband”]. We find no reversible error in any of the issues raised on appeal, save one. Among the issues in dispute between these parties was the question whether any part of Former Husband’s pension was a marital asset. The trial court made no finding in the final judgment concerning whether [796]*796this asset was marital or non-marital, as required by section 61.075(8), Florida Statutes (2009). Former Wife contends on appeal that the lack of findings constitutes reversible error as to this and other assets; however, as to all except the pension, we find, after our review of the record, that any error was harmless. We are unable to make an adequate review of the pension issue without findings, however. The record seems to show that some portion of the pension, although small, was earned during the marriage and should be classified as a marital asset. We therefore reverse as to that issue only and remand for the trial court to hear and to make proper findings on the disposition of the Former Husband’s pension.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, J.

Arvita M. Coleman [“Former Wife”] appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Michael Bland [“Former Husband”]. We find no reversible error in any of the issues raised on appeal, save one. Among the issues in dispute between these parties was the question whether any part of Former Husband’s pension was a marital asset. The trial court made no finding in the final judgment concerning whether [796]*796this asset was marital or non-marital, as required by section 61.075(8), Florida Statutes (2009). Former Wife contends on appeal that the lack of findings constitutes reversible error as to this and other assets; however, as to all except the pension, we find, after our review of the record, that any error was harmless. We are unable to make an adequate review of the pension issue without findings, however. The record seems to show that some portion of the pension, although small, was earned during the marriage and should be classified as a marital asset. We therefore reverse as to that issue only and remand for the trial court to hear and to make proper findings on the disposition of the Former Husband’s pension.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 3d 795, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15174, 2011 WL 4405759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-bland-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack