Background
James Lynch, identified in the opinion as Former Husband, appealed pro se from the Final Judgment Dissolution of Marriage entered by the Circuit Court for Brevard County. The appeal challenged the judgment on several grounds, including the trial court’s treatment of marital liabilities. Michelle Lynch, the appellee, did not appear in the appeal. The lower tribunal case number was 05-2022-DR-043599, and the trial judge was Robert Alan Segal.
Former Husband argued that the Final Judgment failed to allocate marital debts, including credit card balances, vehicle loans, and additional liabilities reflected in his financial affidavit. The appellate court explained that, after identifying assets and liabilities, a trial court must classify each as marital or nonmarital and then distribute them. It cited Jones v. Jones, 413 So. 3d 242, 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025), for that requirement.
The court also quoted Raphael v. Raphael, 221 So. 3d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), which states that insufficient findings concerning property value and the identification of marital assets and debts constitute reversible error requiring remand for appropriate findings. Section 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2025), likewise requires specific written findings identifying marital liabilities and designating which spouse is responsible for each liability.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District agreed with Former Husband’s liability-findings argument. The Final Judgment did not specifically identify or classify any liabilities. Instead, it stated only that each party would be solely responsible for any liability in that party’s name. The court noted that Former Husband’s 2025 financial affidavit identified multiple liabilities. Because the judgment lacked the requisite findings, the court remanded for the trial court to include them.
The issue was preserved because Former Husband raised it in his motion for rehearing. The court cited Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), for the rule that when an error appears for the first time on the face of a final order, a party must alert the court through a motion for rehearing or another appropriate motion to preserve the error for appeal. The court’s preservation discussion concerned this liability-findings issue; it did not announce that every other appellate argument had been preserved.
The court rejected Former Husband’s remaining challenges, stating that he had failed to demonstrate error on any of the other issues presented. It therefore affirmed the Final Judgment in all other respects. The opinion did not separately describe those other issues or supply issue-by-issue reasoning for rejecting them. Its express remand rationale concerned the absence of findings identifying and allocating liabilities, not a determination of the proper classification or distribution of any particular debt.
Key Takeaways
- A dissolution judgment distributing marital liabilities must include the required written findings identifying the liabilities and designating responsibility for each one.
- A provision making each spouse responsible only for liabilities in that spouse’s name did not satisfy the findings requirement where the judgment did not specifically identify or classify liabilities.
- Former Husband preserved the liability-findings issue by raising it in his motion for rehearing.
- The appellate court affirmed all other aspects of the Final Judgment because Former Husband did not demonstrate error on the other issues presented.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that equitable distribution requires more than a general responsibility-for-debt provision. On remand, the trial court must supply the missing findings concerning identification and allocation of liabilities. The opinion does not itself decide which debts are marital, assign particular balances to either spouse, or disturb the portions of the judgment as to which no error was demonstrated.
The formal disposition was “AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.” Judge Harris wrote the opinion, and Judges Makar and Soud concurred. The opinion states that it is not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.