HOW A FAMILY LAW RULE RELATING TO APPEALS EVOLVED
By William D. Slicker[1]
In family law cases, there is a list of factors that a court is supposed to consider when determining alimony. There is also a list of factors that a court is to consider when setting child support. There is also a requirement of setting values on assets when determining equitable distribution. The court is supposed to set out these factors or values in the Final Judgment.
In 2001, an appeal was taken to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal regarding the amount of alimony. The trial court did not set out the factors that the court considered when setting the amount of alimony. The appellate court in that case held that since the appellant had not raised the failure to make the statutorily required findings through a Motion for Rehearing, the appellant was barred from raising the matter in an appeal. Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Florida’s First District Court of Appeal followed this requirement that a party raise the failure to make statutorily required findings through a motion for rehearing or otherwise be barred from raising them in an appeal in Spaulding v. Spaulding, 326 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal took a contrary position. The Fourth District, sitting en banc, found that it was more important to decide the underlying issues rather than requiring a Motion for Rehearing. Fox v. Fox, 262 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Johansson v. Johansson, 270 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Suarez v. Suarez, 284 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). The Fourth District remanded the trial court to establish the missing findings.
Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal said it was following the requirement of the Third District in Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The Fifth District, however, also said that the appellate court could send the case back to the trial court to make those findings. Matajek v. Skowronska, 927 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Brown v. Brown, 220 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal initially followed the Third and Fifth Courts of Appeal. Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). However, the Second District subsequently receded from that opinion and chose to follow the reasoning of Fox. Engle v. Engle, 277 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (certifying conflict with the First, Third, and Fifth Districts); Samaniego v. Samaniega, 325 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).
With the five appellate courts splintered with three different holdings, the Family Law Rules Committee promulgated a new family law rule to resolve the conflicts among the courts of appeal. Family Law Rule 12.530(a) provided, “To preserve for appeal, a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a Motion for Rehearing under this rule.” The Florida Supreme Court adopted that rule change effective August 25, 2022. There are currently proposed changes to Florida’s Family Law Rules which would move that requirement from Rule 12.530(a) to Rule 12.530(b).
This is one example of the way that court holdings and court rules evolve.
[1] William D. Slicker served as a law clerk to the Honorable Steven H. Grimes at Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal and as a law clerk to the Honorable Warren H. Cobb at Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. He has received the Florida Bar President’s Pro Bono Award for the Sixth Circuit, the Ms. JD Incredible Men Award, the St. Petersburg Bar Foundation’s Heroes Among Us Award, the Community Law Program Volunteer of the Year Award, and the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Lighting the Way Award.
