GEORGE CONNER L. BROWN v. TARA LIN BROWN , 239 So. 3d 1271 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •               NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
    MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    OF FLORIDA
    SECOND DISTRICT
    GEORGE CONNER L. BROWN,                     )
    )
    Appellant/Cross-Appellee,      )
    )
    v.                                          )         Case Nos.     2D16-1643
    )                       2D16-3670
    TARA LIN BROWN,                             )
    )
    Appellee/Cross-Appellant.      )             CONSOLIDATED
    )
    Opinion filed March 16, 2018.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for
    Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian,
    Judge.
    Paul S. Maney of Paul S. Maney, P.A.,
    Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
    Michael J. Park, and Joseph R. Park, of
    Park, Ossian, Barnaky & Park, P.A.,
    Clearwater, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    BADALAMENTI, Judge.
    George Conner L. Brown (the Husband) appeals an award of durational
    alimony to Tara Lin Brown (the Wife). The Husband also appeals the trial court's order
    awarding the Wife a portion of the attorney's fees and costs she incurred during the
    parties' dissolution case. The Wife cross-appeals, challenging both the adequacy of the
    trial court's alimony award and the trial court's parental time-sharing schedule.
    Because the record does not contain adequate factual findings as to the
    Wife's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs, we reverse the trial court's order on
    attorney's fees and remand for the trial court to make the necessary findings in order to
    facilitate complete appellate review. See Perez v. Perez, 
    100 So. 3d 769
    , 771 (Fla. 2d
    DCA 2012). Likewise, because the record does not contain adequate factual findings
    for this court to conduct meaningful appellate review of the parental time-sharing
    schedule, we reverse the amended parenting plan and remand for the trial court to
    make the necessary factual findings. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); Clark v. Clark,
    
    825 So. 2d 1016
    , 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). For each issue, we leave it to the
    discretion of the trial court as to whether it can resolve the issue on the current record or
    whether additional evidence is necessary. See Perez, 
    100 So. 3d at 773
    . We affirm all
    remaining portions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings
    consistent with this opinion.
    CASANUEVA and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-3670

Citation Numbers: 239 So. 3d 1271

Filed Date: 3/16/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/16/2018