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
BLAIR CLEMENTS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-2015
ROSIMERI CLEMENTS,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed August 31, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Seminole County,
John D. Galluzzo, Judge.
Shannon McLin Carlyle and John N.
Bogdanoff, of The Carlyle Appellate Law
Firm, Orlando, for Appellant.
Kenneth D. Morse, of Kenneth D. Morse,
PA, Heathrow, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm that part
of the final judgment dissolving the marriage between the parties. However, we reverse
the remainder of the final judgment.
After the final hearing concluded, both parties submitted proposed final judgments.
The trial judge adopted Appellee’s proposed final judgment almost verbatim. We believe
the trial court failed to conduct an independent analysis necessary for a fair resolution of
the issues raised by the parties. Therefore, we affirm the part of the final judgment that
dissolves the marriage between the parties, reverse the remainder of the final judgment,
and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an amended final judgment based on
its own independent analysis. See West v. West, 228 So. 3d 727, 730 (Fla. 5th DCA
2017). Despite our reversal on this basis, we will briefly address Appellant’s arguments
regarding the numerous errors contained in the final judgment under review.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying him permanent alimony,
fashioning a time-sharing schedule, calculating child support, and equitably distributing
the marital assets and liabilities. We agree.
As to the issue of permanent alimony, the trial court’s order regarding alimony was
an abuse of discretion because it failed to: (1) make independent findings of fact or rulings
of law and instead adopted verbatim Appellee’s proposed final judgment; (2) consider the
factors required by case law and statute; (3) consider much of the evidence presented at
trial regarding Appellant’s need and Appellee’s ability to pay; and (4) rebut the
presumption of permanent alimony in favor of Appellant. See Motie v. Motie, 132 So. 3d
1210, 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred in failing to award him
any overnight visits, summer vacation time, or time for holidays. Appellant also contends
that the trial court erred in failing to provide guidance as to how Appellant may increase
his time-sharing with the children. On remand, the trial court is to make independent
findings as to the time-sharing based on the evidence and testimony presented during
2
hearings and at trial. See Pedersen v. Pedersen, 892 So. 2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA
2004).
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in calculating the award of child support.
Specifically, he contends that the trial court’s finding that Appellee’s income was $80,000
was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We note that there were no
findings made by the trial court regarding how it calculated the sum of $80,000. On
remand, the trial court is to include independent findings of fact as to how it calculated
child support and should attach to its final judgment a completed child support guidelines
worksheet. See Preure v. Benhadj-Djillali, 15 So. 3d 877, 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Dep’t
of Rev. ex rel. R.S.M. v. B.J.M., 127 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
Finally, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in listing the SBA loan as a liability
and awarding it to Appellee, as the loan was subsumed into a remortgage of the
commercial condominium. Appellee concedes error on this issue. Because this
calculation reduces her net worth by $81,265, the equalizing payment should be
correspondingly altered. Appellee contends that the sum should now be $17,980.85 to
Appellant instead of $28,421 to Appellee. However, this amount relies on the incorrect
calculation of credits due to Appellee from homeowner’s association dues and real estate
taxes on the marital home paid since Appellant and Appellee separated. Appellant was
not required to contribute to those payments; thus, no credits were owed to Appellee for
his failure to do so. See Kranz v. Kranz, 737 So. 2d 1198, 1202-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Therefore, on remand the trial court should remove those credits from Appellee and
calculate the equitable distribution accordingly. We also note that Appellee’s proposed
final judgment contained numerous mathematical errors that were incorporated into the
3
trial court’s final judgment. In its amended final judgment, the trial court should ensure
that its calculations are free of such errors.
Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the final judgment dissolving the marriage,
reverse the remainder of the judgment, and remand this case to the trial court for entry of
an amended final judgment.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
4