McLean v. McLean

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McLean v. McLean

684 So. 2d 282, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12840, 1996 WL 708894

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 11, 1996

DocketNo. 95-05139

StatusPublished

This text of 684 So. 2d 282 (McLean v. McLean) 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

McLean v. McLean, 684 So. 2d 282, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12840, 1996 WL 708894 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Karen McLean, the former wife, appeals an amended final judgment of dissolution entered after the first judgment was reversed and remanded. She correctly argues that the trial court failed to follow this court’s mandate. Because the trial court merely converted the alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent, without appro[283]*283priate factual findings, the judgment must be reversed.

In McLean v. McLean, 652 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court reversed a one-year award of $2250/month in rehabilitative alimony, holding that it was an abuse of discretion in light of the long-term marriage, remaining minor child, disparity in the parties’ earning abilities, and failure to make findings regarding a rehabilitative plan and goals. In addition, the trial court erred in finding that the Husband’s income was $150,-000 a year, which was only about one-third of his actual income for the previous six years. The trial court also erred in considering the costs of sending the children to college and in considering the potential investment income from conversion of an asset awarded to the Wife. On remand, the trial court was directed to award permanent alimony and to consider the issue of security for certain equalizer payments if requested.

When the case went back to the trial court, no hearing was held nor were the attorneys given an opportunity to present argument on the remanded issues. The trial court simply awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony of $2250/month without making findings on the statutory factors to show how the court arrived at this amount. Without such findings, we can only presume that the monthly sum of $2250, awarded in the first judgment, was based on the trial court’s determination of the Husband’s income, the children’s college costs, and conversion of an asset. Because the trial court’s findings on these issues were reversed, the trial court should have redetermined these issues pursuant to this corut’s opinion before setting the amount of permanent alimony. In the absence of findings, we reverse. See Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing for failure to make findings required by. section 61.08, Fla. Stat., relative to alimony award).

Reversed and remanded.

THREADGILL, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

Karen McLean, the former wife, appeals an amended final judgment of dissolution entered after the first judgment was reversed and remanded. She correctly argues that the trial court failed to follow this court’s mandate. Because the trial court merely converted the alimony award from rehabilitative to permanent, without appro[283]*283priate factual findings, the judgment must be reversed.

In McLean v. McLean, 652 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court reversed a one-year award of $2250/month in rehabilitative alimony, holding that it was an abuse of discretion in light of the long-term marriage, remaining minor child, disparity in the parties’ earning abilities, and failure to make findings regarding a rehabilitative plan and goals. In addition, the trial court erred in finding that the Husband’s income was $150,-000 a year, which was only about one-third of his actual income for the previous six years. The trial court also erred in considering the costs of sending the children to college and in considering the potential investment income from conversion of an asset awarded to the Wife. On remand, the trial court was directed to award permanent alimony and to consider the issue of security for certain equalizer payments if requested.

When the case went back to the trial court, no hearing was held nor were the attorneys given an opportunity to present argument on the remanded issues. The trial court simply awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony of $2250/month without making findings on the statutory factors to show how the court arrived at this amount. Without such findings, we can only presume that the monthly sum of $2250, awarded in the first judgment, was based on the trial court’s determination of the Husband’s income, the children’s college costs, and conversion of an asset. Because the trial court’s findings on these issues were reversed, the trial court should have redetermined these issues pursuant to this corut’s opinion before setting the amount of permanent alimony. In the absence of findings, we reverse. See Sasnett v. Sasnett, 679 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing for failure to make findings required by. section 61.08, Fla. Stat., relative to alimony award).

Reversed and remanded.

THREADGILL, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 So. 2d 282, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12840, 1996 WL 708894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclean-v-mclean-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack