Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 1, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-624
Lower Tribunal No. 11-13464
________________
Robert Matthew Kritzman,
Appellant/Cros-Appellee,
vs.
Karen Elizabeth Kritzman,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna
Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.
Robert M. Kritzman, in proper person.
Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Ft. Lauderdale), for
appellee/cross-appellant.
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES, and BOKOR, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, C.J.
Robert Kritzman (“the Husband”) appeals the trial court’s orders
granting Karen Kritzman’s (“the Wife”) motion for rehearing and/or
reconsideration. We affirm in part and reverse in part, remanding the case
with instructions to set forth specific findings of special circumstances to
support the imposition of an equitable lien on the Husband’s retirement
accounts. We affirm as to all other issues without further discussion.
Husband and Wife entered into an Amended Mediated Settlement
Agreement (“MSA”) on March 10, 2014, in which the Husband agreed to pay
permanent alimony to the Wife equal to one-third of his gross income from
employment or any other source of earned income. For a period
commencing in 2015, the Husband failed to pay the full alimony amount as
set forth within the Amended MSA. The Wife filed a Motion for Contempt,
Enforcement, Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Other Relief on October 3, 2019,
alleging the Husband did not pay the full amount of alimony due.
On rehearing, the trial court ordered that the payment of the vested
alimony arrearages be secured by imposition of an equitable lien on the
balance of the Husband’s retirement funds. The Husband claims that the trial
court imposed the equitable lien “without any notice or discussion and
substantively erred by issuing that equitable lien with no facts, discussion, or
finding of facts regarding the elements required for issuance of an equitable
2
lien.” We agree, as case law requires the trial court to set forth specific
findings of special circumstances before imposing an equitable lien to protect
payment of alimony. See Mackoul v. Mackoul, 32 So. 3d 741, 742 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (“The trial court must set forth specific findings of special
circumstances, the payor spouse's ability to afford the security, and whether
the security exists only for arrearages, or alternatively, if the whole or a
portion of the security is payable to the surviving family to minimize economic
harm.”).
Because the trial court failed to set forth specific findings of special
circumstances before imposing the equitable lien, we reverse as to this issue
only and remand for additional findings. We affirm as to all other issues
without further discussion.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
3