The Debate Continues on Whether to Remand Family Law Cases with Inadequate Findings

In 2001, the Third District Court of Appeal decided a case called Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, where they said that in family law cases, you can’t complain about a judge not making factual findings unless you asked the judge to do so first. Then in 2004, the Fifth District followed this rule in a case called Mathieu v. Mathieu, but said they might send the case back for findings if they can’t review it properly. The First District also followed the Broadfoot rule, but didn’t adopt the Mathieu exception. The Fourth District disagreed with both Broadfoot and Mathieu. The Second District hasn’t said anything about it yet. Because the law on this issue is unclear, the Florida Supreme Court needs to clarify it. The author looks at some court decisions, including one called Dorsett v. Dorsett, and says that the Fourth District should change their position and adopt the Broadfoot rule and the Mathieu exception to make the law consistent in Florida. In the case of Broadfoot, the appellant wanted the Third District to reverse the trial court’s decision on alimony and equitable distribution, but the court said the issue wasn’t brought up at the right time. Another case, Roth v. Cortina, was later decided by the Third District, and they did reverse the trial court’s decision because they didn’t explain their reasoning. In the Fifth District, a case called Mathieu said that if the trial court doesn’t make enough factual findings, the appellate court can still review the case as long as it’s not too hard, but they might send it back for more findings if they need to. The Fourth District hasn’t decided if they agree with the Third and Fifth Districts yet. The First District Court of Appeal in Florida has had opportunities to decide whether to adopt the Broadfoot approach with or without the Mathieu exception. In two cases, Owens v. Owens and Welch v. Welch, the court did not discuss the Mathieu exception, leaving the possibility open for future consideration. In the author’s opinion, the court should embrace the Mathieu exception to promote consistency in Florida’s legal system. In a 2008 case, the Second District Court of Florida ruled in Esaw v. Esaw that a trial court’s failure to make specific findings in a divorce case did not warrant reversal, mainly because there was no transcript of the trial. The court also cited a previous case, Klette v. Klette, which stated that a judgment should not be reversed for procedural errors unless it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court did not address the issue of preservation, but a judge suggested that litigants should bring up the lack of findings at the trial level to avoid potential issues on appeal.Overall, the ruling in Esaw aimed to bring stability to the legal system, which had seen inconsistent decisions from other district courts. It remains to be seen how future cases in the Second District will approach this issue. The Fourth District Court said that the trial court in Dorsett made a mistake by not valuing the property in a divorce case. This goes against what was said in another case, Mathieu. The court said that not valuing the property is a big mistake and sent the case back to the trial court to fix it. Later, the Fourth District followed this decision in another case, Mondello v. Torres, and said that the trial court made a mistake by not valuing an insurance policy. The court said that the Fourth District disagrees with the Mathieu case. It’s important for the Fourth District to stick to one approach to make the law more consistent. A court decision called Dorsett has a rigid rule that doesn’t help develop the law and doesn’t give clear legal guidance. Another case called Mondello followed Dorsett and closed the door for future cases to be decided in different ways. The author thinks the courts should consider different factors and exceptions to the rule in order to make better decisions. They want the courts to change their approach to the law in order to make it more stable and predictable. In summary, this article argues that Florida district courts should all follow the same approach in family law cases to bring consistency and predictability to the legal system. The courts should embrace the Mathieu exception and speak with one voice, as this will provide litigants with more confidence in predicting the outcomes of their cases. This will also avoid the need for the Florida Supreme Court to intervene. The article cites specific court cases to support its argument. The article by Fleurantin discusses the importance of consequence, consistency, and coherence in court decisions. This means that court decisions should be based on reasoned analysis, follow legal precedents, and be applied in a principled and reasonable way. The case of Dorsett impairs the principle of coherence because different courts have different interpretations of the law. The Broadfoot case also highlights the general rule that claims not presented to the trial judge will not be considered on appeal. However, the court reserves the right to reverse a decision if it lacks necessary findings for appellate review. The text cites various legal cases and discusses the authors qualifications and legal practice. The author is a member of the Appellate Practice Section of The Florida Bar and has a focus on civil and appellate litigation, particularly in personal injury, car accidents, family law, real estate, foreclosure, and immigration. The author acknowledges others for their help in writing the column.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-debate-continues-on-whether-to-remand-family-law-cases-with-inadequate-findings/