The First District Court of Appeal ruled today in Bateh v. Bateh, a case in which the Former Wife raised a number of issues on appeal. First and foremost, the Former Wife argued that the trial court erred in declining to find that the Former Husband had dissipated marital assets. The First District Court, however, found ample evidence in the record to contradict this assertion, in that the Former Husband’s dental practice was clearly in dire straits, and his attempts to save it did not constitute dissipation. The Former Wife also, however, raised the lower court’s failure to distribute approximately $30,000.00 in furnishings purchased by the Former Husband for a rental home he occupied during the parties’ separation, and reversal was required on that point. In addition, the Former Wife argued that the lower court erred in failing to address a post-filing check from the Former Husband to a family member, and on remand the lower court was instructed to address this issue. The First District also reversed as requested by the Former Wife on the grounds that the car found to be the joint property of the adult children was not valued and assigned. And, finally, the Court agreed that reversal was required due to the lower court’s failure to include in its Final Judgment a determination of the nature of the Former Wife’s actual need for alimony when awarding only nominal alimony which did not meet the need.