Rogozinski v. Rogozinski

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rogozinski v. Rogozinski

742 So. 2d 487, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12686, 1999 WL 761164

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 1999

DocketNo. 98-4788

StatusPublished

This text of 742 So. 2d 487 (Rogozinski v. Rogozinski) 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

Rogozinski v. Rogozinski, 742 So. 2d 487, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12686, 1999 WL 761164 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following dissolution of marriage, Former Husband appeals the trial court’s distribution of marital assets, raising six issues on appeal. We affirm the three issues concerning the trial court’s equitable distribution of assets of Former Husband’s alarm monitoring business, and we affirm the trial court’s equitable distribution of personal property and contents of a garage workshop without further discussion. Likewise, we affirm the trial court’s equitable distribution of the value of the garage workshop.

We find error, however, in the trial court’s failure to make specific findings of fact identifying marital and non-marital liabilities, as required by section 61.075(3). Failure to make these specific findings requires remand to the trial court for specific findings of marital and non-marital liabilities and designating which spouse shall be responsible for each liability, in accordance with section 61.075(3). Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 709 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

We therefore remand the entire case to the trial court to make such revisions to the equitable distribution as may be necessary upon designating marital and non-marital liabilities between the parties.

BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following dissolution of marriage, Former Husband appeals the trial court’s distribution of marital assets, raising six issues on appeal. We affirm the three issues concerning the trial court’s equitable distribution of assets of Former Husband’s alarm monitoring business, and we affirm the trial court’s equitable distribution of personal property and contents of a garage workshop without further discussion. Likewise, we affirm the trial court’s equitable distribution of the value of the garage workshop.

We find error, however, in the trial court’s failure to make specific findings of fact identifying marital and non-marital liabilities, as required by section 61.075(3). Failure to make these specific findings requires remand to the trial court for specific findings of marital and non-marital liabilities and designating which spouse shall be responsible for each liability, in accordance with section 61.075(3). Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 709 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

We therefore remand the entire case to the trial court to make such revisions to the equitable distribution as may be necessary upon designating marital and non-marital liabilities between the parties.

BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 487, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12686, 1999 WL 761164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogozinski-v-rogozinski-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack