Filed: Oct. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SCOTT A. BROCK, FORMER HUSBAND, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D16-3117 CAROLYN ANN BROCK, FORMER WIFE, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed October 11, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Christopher N. Patterson, Judge. Rhonda S. Clyatt, Panama City, for Appellant. Russell S. Roberts, Marianna, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We affirm i
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SCOTT A. BROCK, FORMER HUSBAND, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D16-3117 CAROLYN ANN BROCK, FORMER WIFE, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed October 11, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Christopher N. Patterson, Judge. Rhonda S. Clyatt, Panama City, for Appellant. Russell S. Roberts, Marianna, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We affirm in..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
SCOTT A. BROCK, FORMER
HUSBAND, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D16-3117
CAROLYN ANN BROCK,
FORMER WIFE,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed October 11, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County.
Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.
Rhonda S. Clyatt, Panama City, for Appellant.
Russell S. Roberts, Marianna, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm in all respects the Amended Final Judgment of Dissolution of
Marriage. The issues now raised on appeal by the former husband were not brought
to the trial court’s attention either during the final hearing or in the former husband’s
motion for rehearing, which challenged other aspects of the amended final judgment.
Consequently, we hold they either were not preserved for appellate review or were
expressly waived. Byers v. Byers, 149 So. 3d 161, 161-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Furr
v. Furr,
57 So. 3d 914, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Mem.); Mize v. Mize,
45 So. 3d
49, 49 & n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Welch v. Welch,
22 So. 3d 153, 155-56 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2009); Simmons v. Simmons,
979 So. 2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA
2008); Owens v. Owens,
973 So. 2d 1169, 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Regardless,
because the evidentiary bases for the trial court’s equitable distribution of the parties’
marital assets and liabilities, its award of permanent alimony to the former wife, and
its award of child support were reasonably clear and supported by the record, we
perceive no reason to reverse for lack of statutory findings in the written
judgment. Buchanan v. Buchanan, No. 1D16-4492,
2017 WL 4018417 at *1 (Fla.
1st DCA September 13, 2017). Finally, our review of the record convinces us that
even though the trial court adopted the former wife’s proposed final judgment, there
is no evidence that its doing so resulted in a “substitute for [the court’s] thoughtful
and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law . . . .”
Byers, 149 So. 3d at
162 (citing Perlow v. Berg-Perlow,
875 So. 2d 383, 390 (Fla. 2004)).
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
2
