IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
KURT DANIEL SHUFELT,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-4114
MARIA ELIZABETH SHUFELT,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 2, 2016
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
Edward J. Richardson, Judge.
Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Elizabeth Harris,
P.A., Titusville, for Appellant.
Maria Elizabeth Shufelt, Palm Bay, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage which
adopted the report and recommendation ("report") previously submitted by a general
magistrate. Kurt Daniel Shufelt ("Former Husband") raises two issues on appeal. First,
he argues that the trial court erred in signing the proposed final judgment submitted by
Former Wife's counsel without providing him the opportunity to comment, review, or
object. Second, he contends that the distribution of the marital home to Maria Elizabeth
Shufelt ("Former Wife"), which essentially awards to her the parties' sole marital asset, is
erroneous. Because Former Husband has failed to provide a sufficient record to establish
error on the first issue and failed to preserve the second issue for appellate review, we
affirm.
Former Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. After Former Husband
responded, the trial court referred this case to a general magistrate. Each party appeared
before the general magistrate without counsel, and after receiving evidence from the
parties, the general magistrate issued her report which, pertinent to this appeal,
recommended that the marital home be distributed entirely to Former Wife. After
receiving the report, Former Husband filed an objection arguing, among other things, that
the marital home should be equitably distributed to both parties.
On October 19, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on Former Husband's objection
to the report. By this time, Former Wife was represented by counsel. Our record does
not contain a transcript of this hearing. The following day, Former Wife's counsel
submitted to the court a proposed final judgment approving and adopting the general
magistrate's report together with a transmittal letter requesting that the court enter the
proposed final judgment, if no objections were received. Counsel provided Former
Husband with a copy of the letter and the proposed final judgment. However, that same
day and prior to Former Husband having an opportunity to respond, the court entered the
final judgment as submitted, with one handwritten interlineation.
Citing to Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004), Former Husband
argues on appeal that when one party submits a proposed final judgment, a trial court
errs if it enters the judgment verbatim without providing the other party an opportunity to
2
review the proposed judgment and make objections. Although Former Husband had
received a copy of the general magistrate's report several months prior to the hearing on
his objections and the final judgment essentially overrules his objections and adopts the
report, it is clear that Former Husband did not have an opportunity to review and, if
necessary, object to the final judgment before it was entered. However, as we have
recently written, this fact alone does not necessarily constitute reversible error. Wilkinson
v. Wilkinson, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1766, D1766-67 (Fla. 5th DCA July 29, 2016).
Nevertheless, "[b]ecause this procedure raises questions of fairness, we review such
cases to ensure that the final judgment conforms to the trial court's oral findings and is
supported by competent, substantial evidence." Id. (additional citations omitted). In this
appeal, Former Husband, as the appellant, has the burden of demonstrating reversible
error. We find that Former Husband has not met his burden because without a sufficient
record of the hearing which resulted in the entry of the final judgment, Former Husband
has not demonstrated that the final judgment is either inconsistent with the trial court's
oral findings at the hearing or is not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Former Husband next argues that nothing in the present record justified the
unequal distribution of the marital assets to Former Wife. Section 61.075(1), Florida
Statutes (2015), provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]n a proceeding for dissolution of
marriage, . . . in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court
must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a
justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors . . . ." The "relevant
factors" that must be considered by the trial court to justify an unequal distribution of
marital assets include those factors contained in section 61.075(1)(a)-(j). Rossi v. Rossi,
3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
KURT DANIEL SHUFELT,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-4114
MARIA ELIZABETH SHUFELT,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed September 2, 2016
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
Edward J. Richardson, Judge.
Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Elizabeth Harris,
P.A., Titusville, for Appellant.
Maria Elizabeth Shufelt, Palm Bay, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage which
adopted the report and recommendation ("report") previously submitted by a general
magistrate. Kurt Daniel Shufelt ("Former Husband") raises two issues on appeal. First,
he argues that the trial court erred in signing the proposed final judgment submitted by
Former Wife's counsel without providing him the opportunity to comment, review, or
object. Second, he contends that the distribution of the marital home to Maria Elizabeth