IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KURT DANIEL SHUFELT,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D15-4114

MARIA ELIZABETH SHUFELT,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed September 2, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

Edward J. Richardson, Judge.

Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Elizabeth Harris,

P.A., Titusville, for Appellant.

Maria Elizabeth Shufelt, Palm Bay, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage which 

adopted the report and recommendation ("report") previously submitted by a general 

magistrate. Kurt Daniel Shufelt ("Former Husband") raises two issues on appeal. First, 

he argues that the trial court erred in signing the proposed final judgment submitted by 

Former Wife's counsel without providing him the opportunity to comment, review, or 

object. Second, he contends that the distribution of the marital home to Maria Elizabeth 
2

Shufelt ("Former Wife"), which essentially awards to her the parties' sole marital asset, is 

erroneous. Because Former Husband has failed to provide a sufficient record to establish 

error on the first issue and failed to preserve the second issue for appellate review, we 

affirm.

Former Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. After Former Husband 

responded, the trial court referred this case to a general magistrate. Each party appeared 

before the general magistrate without counsel, and after receiving evidence from the 

parties, the general magistrate issued her report which, pertinent to this appeal, 

recommended that the marital home be distributed entirely to Former Wife. After 

receiving the report, Former Husband filed an objection arguing, among other things, that 

the marital home should be equitably distributed to both parties.

On October 19, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on Former Husband's objection

to the report. By this time, Former Wife was represented by counsel. Our record does 

not contain a transcript of this hearing. The following day, Former Wife's counsel 

submitted to the court a proposed final judgment approving and adopting the general 

magistrate's report together with a transmittal letter requesting that the court enter the 

proposed final judgment, if no objections were received. Counsel provided Former 

Husband with a copy of the letter and the proposed final judgment. However, that same 

day and prior to Former Husband having an opportunity to respond, the court entered the 

final judgment as submitted, with one handwritten interlineation.

Citing to Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004), Former Husband 

argues on appeal that when one party submits a proposed final judgment, a trial court 

errs if it enters the judgment verbatim without providing the other party an opportunity to 
3

review the proposed judgment and make objections. Although Former Husband had 

received a copy of the general magistrate's report several months prior to the hearing on 

his objections and the final judgment essentially overrules his objections and adopts the 

report, it is clear that Former Husband did not have an opportunity to review and, if 

necessary, object to the final judgment before it was entered. However, as we have 

recently written, this fact alone does not necessarily constitute reversible error. Wilkinson 

v. Wilkinson, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1766, D1766-67 (Fla. 5th DCA July 29, 2016). 

Nevertheless, "[b]ecause this procedure raises questions of fairness, we review such 

cases to ensure that the final judgment conforms to the trial court's oral findings and is 

supported by competent, substantial evidence." Id. (additional citations omitted). In this 

appeal, Former Husband, as the appellant, has the burden of demonstrating reversible 

error. We find that Former Husband has not met his burden because without a sufficient 

record of the hearing which resulted in the entry of the final judgment, Former Husband

has not demonstrated that the final judgment is either inconsistent with the trial court's 

oral findings at the hearing or is not supported by competent substantial evidence.

Former Husband next argues that nothing in the present record justified the 

unequal distribution of the marital assets to Former Wife. Section 61.075(1), Florida 

Statutes (2015), provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]n a proceeding for dissolution of 

marriage, . . . in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court 

must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a 

justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors . . . ." The "relevant 

factors" that must be considered by the trial court to justify an unequal distribution of 

marital assets include those factors contained in section 61.075(1)(a)-(j). Rossi v. Rossi, 
4

169 So. 3d 1233, 1234 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (quoting Watson v. Watson, 124 So. 3d 

340, 342-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)).

The trial court's findings of fact in the final judgment were inadequate to support 

the unequal distribution of this marital asset. However, this court has long held that in 

order to preserve for appellate review the issue of the failure of the trial court to make the 

required findings of fact to support the distribution of assets and liabilities in a final 

judgment of dissolution of marriage, the alleged defect must be brought to the trial court's 

attention by filing a motion for rehearing. See, e.g., Anaya v. Anaya, 987 So. 2d 806, 807 

(Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citations omitted). In the instant case, Former Husband did file a 

pro se motion to set aside the final judgment. However, even if we construe that motion

as being a timely filed motion for rehearing, Former Husband raised no issue or argument 

in the motion regarding the trial court's unequal distribution of the marital home. Thus, 

Former Husband has failed to preserve his second issue for appellate review.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, TORPY, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.