Divorce; Marital property; Cunningham v Cunningham; Equitable division of the marital estate; Berger v Berger

Determining that the trial court did not make specific factual findings on various matters, the court remanded for it to do so as to whether a Florida property was marital or separate property, its value, which party owns it, the value of plaintiff-ex-husband’s pension as it compared to the value of the marital estate awarded to defendant-ex-wife, and why the division of the marital estate was equitable. The court found that the trial court’s conclusion “that the Florida property was not marital property lacks any reasoning or analysis from which” it could assess whether this ruling was clearly erroneous. The trial court’s finding was “conclusory, and because there was ample evidence presented that the parties did purchase the Florida property together, with marital funds, during the course of the marriage, the trial court’s finding lacks the specificity required to facilitate appellate review.” As things stood, the finding as to the Florida property was “insufficient to determine whether it was clearly erroneous to categorize the property as separate property, let alone whether it was equitable to award the property to plaintiff.” In addition, however the property is categorized, “the trial court must also make specific findings regarding the value of the property, which party should retain ownership of the property, and why that ownership is equitable. If necessary, the trial court shall take additional testimony regarding this issue, and may supplement the record, in order to make more specific findings.” The court further concluded that the trial court did not make specific factual findings as to “the value of plaintiff’s pension as compared to the value of the properties awarded to defendant.” As with the failure in regard to the Florida property, the failure to make specific findings on the value of plaintiff’s pension precluded the court “from concluding whether the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous, and whether the trial court actually engineered an equitable division of the marital estate.” The court retained jurisdiction and issued an order as to the proceedings on remand.