Furr v. Furr

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Furr v. Furr

57 So. 3d 914, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 2011 WL 985279

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

Docket1D10-4610

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 57 So. 3d 914 (Furr v. Furr) 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

Furr v. Furr, 57 So. 3d 914, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 2011 WL 985279 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former husband, seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He challenges the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony, attorney’s fees, and costs to the former wife; the valuation date used by the trial court in the equitable distribution of his retirement account; and the distribution of the marital debts. We affirm because, to the extent the former husband is challenging the sufficiency of the findings on these issues in the final judgment, he failed to preserve the issues for appellate review through a motion for rehearing or other post-judgment filing, see Mize v. Mize, 45 So.3d 49, 49 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); and, to the extent he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings on these issues, he failed to demonstrate reversible error. See Klette v. Klette, 785 So.2d 562, 563-64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979), and explaining that the appellate court is unable to determine whether the omission of statutorily-required findings constitutes harmful error in the absence of a transcript).

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former husband, seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He challenges the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony, attorney’s fees, and costs to the former wife; the valuation date used by the trial court in the equitable distribution of his retirement account; and the distribution of the marital debts. We affirm because, to the extent the former husband is challenging the sufficiency of the findings on these issues in the final judgment, he failed to preserve the issues for appellate review through a motion for rehearing or other post-judgment filing, see Mize v. Mize, 45 So.3d 49, 49 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); and, to the extent he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s findings on these issues, he failed to demonstrate reversible error. See Klette v. Klette, 785 So.2d 562, 563-64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979), and explaining that the appellate court is unable to determine whether the omission of statutorily-required findings constitutes harmful error in the absence of a transcript).

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 3d 914, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, 2011 WL 985279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furr-v-furr-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack