Mize v. Mize

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mize v. Mize

45 So. 3d 49, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12383, 2010 WL 3328050

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 25, 2010

Docket1D10-0786

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 45 So. 3d 49 (Mize v. Mize) 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

Mize v. Mize, 45 So. 3d 49, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12383, 2010 WL 3328050 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKES, C.J.

The Husband contests a Final Order of Dissolution, arguing, among other things, that the trial court made insufficient fact findings to support its apportionment of liabilities, its denial of his motion to vacate a temporary alimony award, and its decision to grant the Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees. We agree these determinations were not supported by adequate fact findings. However, because the Husband failed to challenge the insufficiency of the fact findings through a motion for rehearing or by any other post-judgment pleading, he has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review. 1 For this reason, and because we find the Husband’s remaining arguments meritless, the Final Judgment of Dissolution is AFFIRMED.

KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

1

. See Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (stating “[a] party is not entitled to complain that a judgment in a marital and family law case fails to contain sufficient findings unless that party raised the omission before the trial court in a motion for rehearing"); see also Welch v. Welch, 22 So.3d 153, 155-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

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

HAWKES, C.J.

The Husband contests a Final Order of Dissolution, arguing, among other things, that the trial court made insufficient fact findings to support its apportionment of liabilities, its denial of his motion to vacate a temporary alimony award, and its decision to grant the Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees. We agree these determinations were not supported by adequate fact findings. However, because the Husband failed to challenge the insufficiency of the fact findings through a motion for rehearing or by any other post-judgment pleading, he has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review. 1 For this reason, and because we find the Husband’s remaining arguments meritless, the Final Judgment of Dissolution is AFFIRMED.

KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

1

. See Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (stating “[a] party is not entitled to complain that a judgment in a marital and family law case fails to contain sufficient findings unless that party raised the omission before the trial court in a motion for rehearing"); see also Welch v. Welch, 22 So.3d 153, 155-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 So. 3d 49, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12383, 2010 WL 3328050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mize-v-mize-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack