Mize v. Mize
Summary of the case Mize v. Mize
The Husband appealed a Final Order of Dissolution, contesting the trial court's insufficient fact findings regarding liabilities, denial of his motion to vacate temporary alimony, and granting of attorney's fees to the Wife. The appellate court agreed that the fact findings were inadequate but affirmed the judgment because the Husband did not preserve these issues for review by failing to file a motion for rehearing.
Key Issues of the case Mize v. Mize
- Insufficient fact findings for temporary alimony
- Preservation of issues for appellate review
Key Facts of the case Mize v. Mize
- Husband contested the trial court's decisions on liabilities and temporary alimony.
- Husband failed to file a motion for rehearing to preserve issues for appeal.
Decision of the case Mize v. Mize
Affirmed
Opinions
45 So.3d 49 (2010) Richard C. MIZE, Husband, Appellant, v. Heidi W. MIZE, Wife, Appellee. No. 1D10-0786. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
August 25, 2010. Rehearing Denied October 1, 2010. Gary S. Edinger, Gainesville, for Appellant.
Terence M. Brown, of Brown & Sexton, Starke, for Appellee. HAWKES, C.J. The Husband contests a Final Order of Dissolution, arguing, among other things, that the trial court made insufficient fact findings to support its apportionment of liabilities, its denial of his motion to vacate a temporary alimony award, and its decision to grant the Wife's motion for attorney's fees. We agree these determinations were not supported by adequate fact findings.
However, because the Husband failed to challenge the insufficiency of the fact findings through a motion for rehearing or by any other post-judgment pleading, he has failed to preserve these issues for appellate review.[1] For this reason, and because we find the Husband's remaining arguments meritless, the Final Judgment of Dissolution is AFFIRMED. KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (stating “[a] party is not entitled to complain that a judgment in a marital and family law case fails to contain sufficient findings unless that party raised the omission before the trial court in a motion for rehearing”); see also Welch v. Welch, 22 So.3d 153, 155-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169, 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).