Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: D.M., etc. v. M.D., etc. (fla, 2019-06-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D.M., etc. v. M.D., etc.
Fla. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Callwood v. Callwood, 221 So. 3d 1198, 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Dep’t of Children & Families v. J.S., 183 So. 3d 1177, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 60 So. 3d 466, 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710, 711-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So. 2d 1157, 1157-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Winney v. Winney (5×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Town v. Town
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
cited Cited "see" Navarro v. Navarro
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So.2d 1157, 1157-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
examined Cited "see" Fulmer v. Fulmer (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
cited Cited "see" Torres v. Torres
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
cited Cited "see" Burke v. Burke
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So.2d 1157, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
cited Cited "see" Williams v. Williams
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shoffner v. Shoffner, 744 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Viera v. Viera, 698 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Charles R. SHOFFNER, Appellant,
v.
Mary L. SHOFFNER, Appellee.
98-3122.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct 29, 1999.
744 So. 2d 1157
Per Curiam.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

James G. Roberts of Roberts & Reiter, P.A., Jacksonville; Michael J. Korn of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.

Nancy N. Nowlis and Barry L. Zisser, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The court's opinion in this cause filed August 17, 1999, is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted therefore.

The trial court in the instant case granted a judgment of dissolution, awarded permanent periodic alimony, and distributed assets of the parties, all without the factual findings which are required under section 61.075(3) and section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Without specific written findings as to the value of marital assets and liabilities, meaningful appellate review of the equitable distribution of property is impossible. See, e.g.,[*1158] Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Written findings in the order are also required in regard to an award of permanent alimony. See, e.g., McCarty v. McCarty, 710 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Where a final judgment lacks findings of fact to support an award of alimony or equitable distribution, the judgment will be reversed and remanded to the trial court for findings. See Dal Ponte v. Dal Ponte, 692 So.2d 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Bringedahl v. Bringedahl, 712 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

We affirm the judgment of dissolution and the trial court's award of visitation; however, we otherwise reverse the judgment entered in the trial court due to the trial court's failure to make findings of fact in support of its determination in regard to alimony and equitable distribution of property. We remand for reconsideration of those awards by the trial court.

If necessary, the trial court may take additional evidence in order to make the appropriate findings in support of its determinations. Further, in the interest of judicial economy, and for reasons of convenience and expense to the parties, the Chief Judge of the court is directed to assign this case to the judge who entered the final judgment for the purpose of conducting all further proceedings on remand which are required or permitted by this opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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