Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing.”
47 citation events (47 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: BRADLEY ENGLE v. MICHELLE K. ENGLE (fladistctapp, 2019-07-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) BRADLEY ENGLE v. MICHELLE K. ENGLE
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bank of New York Mellon v. Sandhill
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
We have held in other situations that a party must move for rehearing or similarly provide the trial court with an opportunity to set forth mandatorily required factual findings before seeking appellate review based upon the absence or insufficiency of factual findings. “[W]e will treat the lack of adequate findings as an unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court’s attention.” Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C.S.C-D. v. Department of Children & Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
See A.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 118 So.3d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[I]f statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court’s order, Appellant needed to preserve these issues ‘by a motion for rehearing or ... [by otherwise bringing] the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected.’ ” (quoting D.T. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So.3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011))); R.B. v. Dep’t Children & Families, 997 So.2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Colin v. Colin
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
The issue of individualized findings was not preserved, even assuming the necessary findings are not “either express or apparent within the judgment.” See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hedstrom v. Hedstrom
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mondello v. Torres
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
The Third District noted, however, that its decision was subject to one caveat: Since the principal reason for findings of fact in these cases is to allow for meaningful appellate review in this very important area of the law, if the court determines on its own that its review is hampered, we may, at our discretion, send the case hack for findings. *400 Id. at 741, n. 1 (emphasis added). 3 Here, in any event, Wife does not simply contend that the trial court erred in failing to render factual findings on this asset.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anaya v. Anaya
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
A party may not complain about "inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing." Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So.2d 981, 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Esaw v. Esaw
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] We note that in Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), the court stated "that a party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing" and that "[i]n the usual case, we will treat the lack of adequate findings as an unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court's attention." See also Owens v. Owens, 32 Fla. L.
discussed Cited "see" J.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See R.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams. , 997 So.2d 1216 , 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming termination of parental rights where "issue was not brought to the attention of the trial judge by a motion for rehearing and thus, has not been preserved for appellate review" (citing Mathieu v. Mathieu , 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ) ); see also D.T. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams. , 54 So.3d 632 , 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming where "[a]ppellant failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point…
discussed Cited "see" J.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See R.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams. , 997 So.2d 1216 , 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming termination of parental rights where "issue was not brought to the attention of the trial judge by a motion for rehearing and thus, has not been preserved for appellate review" (citing Mathieu v. Mathieu , 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ) ); see also D.T. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams. , 54 So.3d 632 , 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming where "[a]ppellant failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point…
discussed Cited "see" TIMOTHY RICHARD FOX v. PAMELA SUE FOX (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu, 877 So. 2d at 741 .
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. Brown
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 , 741 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“Since the principal reason for findings of fact in these cases is to allow for meaningful appellate review in this very important area of the law, if the court determines on its own that its review is hampered, we may, at our discretion, send the case back for findings.”); see also Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So.2d 981, 987-88 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that notwithstanding appellant’s failure to raise lack of factual findings in motion for rehearing, remand for additional factual findings on issue of permanent period…
cited Cited "see" Magical Cruise Co. v. Turk
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" David v. David
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Williamson v. Cowan
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" RB v. Department of Children and Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
cited Cited "see" Geoghegan v. Geoghegan
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 909 So.2d 862 (Fla.2005).
discussed Cited "see" Owens v. Owens
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 909 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2005) (treating lack of adequate findings as unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court's attention); see also Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding a party cannot appeal inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing).
Morris R. MATHIEU, Appellant,
v.
Kris MATHIEU n/k/a Kris Badzinski, Appellee.
5D03-2954.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 7, 2004.
877 So. 2d 740
Per Curiam.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

[*741] Hal Roen, of Hal Roen, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.

Neva M. Kelaher, Winter Park, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is the appeal of an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband, Morris Mathieu ["Mathieu"], has raised five claims of reversible error in the final judgment. A significant theme running throughout is that inadequate findings of fact were made by the trial court. We disagree because the required findings are either express or apparent within the judgment, and our review is not hampered.

After the trial court issued its judgment below, Mathieu's trial counsel, an experienced marital lawyer, filed a detailed motion for rehearing, raising multiple issues of law and asserting that several of the court's findings were not supported by the evidence at trial. Notably, however, the only issue about which the inadequacy of the court's findings was raised was attorney's fees.

It commonly happens in appeals from final judgments in dissolution of marriage cases that the appellant will urge reversible error based on inadequate findings of fact, yet the claim of inadequate findings is often not brought to the attention of the trial court by way of a motion for rehearing. Rather than bring the fact-finding defect to the trial court at the time the decision is made so that the same judge who decided the case can correct the omission while the case is fresh in his mind, often the defect is not ascertained on appeal until many months have elapsed. At best, the trial court has to recall facts that have receded in memory. At worst, the case may land in the lap of a different judge, who has to start all over.

The Third District Court of Appeal has taken the approach that a party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings in a dissolution case unless the alleged defect was brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing. Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). This strikes us as sensible and we adopt this approach. In the usual case, we will treat the lack of adequate findings as an unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court's attention.[1]

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.

1 Our decision is subject to one caveat: Since the principal reason for findings of fact in these cases is to allow for meaningful appellate review in this very important area of the law, if the court determines on its own that its review is hampered, we may, at our discretion, send the case back for findings.