Crooks v. Crooks

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2007 GARY CROOKS, Appellant, v. DANIELLE A. CROOKS, Appellee. No. 4D06-3087 [October 17, 2007] PER CURIAM. The former husband, Gary Crooks, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We write to address his contention that the trial court erred by failing to identify and give values to three categories of property. Florida Statutes section 61.075 provides that in any contested action where an agreement has not been reached, specific written findings must be made identifying, valuing, and distributing the marital and non-marital assets and liabilities. These factual findings required by section 61.075(3) are necessary in order to facilitate effective appellate review of the trial court s property distribution scheme. Fulmer v. Fulmer, 961 So. 2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Although the former wife testified about jewelry, an IBM bank account, and an account at Wachovia, the trial court failed to make the requisite factual findings with regard to those items. In light of the former husband s statement on appeal that he does not seek to have the assets redistributed, we remand for the trial court to identify those assets and determine if they are marital or non-marital. To the extent that the items are found to be marital assets, the trial court should appraise their values, based on the instant record, and recalculate the equalization payment if the court determines that the current equalization payment is incorrect. We have considered the other issue raised by the former husband but find no error. Reversed. SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. * * * Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jack H. Cook, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502005DR002618XXXXMB. Christopher R. Jette of Goldstein & Jette, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.