in the judgment the trial court ordered that the parties divide the children’s medical expenses that had been previously incurred and paid. The court also reserved jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs. We conclude that the reasoning provided in the final judgment does not support the inequitable distribution of marital assets. Therefore, we reverse the equitable distribution and remand for the trial court to identify, value, and equitably distribute the parties’ assets and make findings in accordance with section 61.075(1) and (3). See Silverman, 940 So.2d at 617-18. ALIMONY The Wife correctly contends that the trial court committed an error of law in denying her request for alimony, and this error is apparent on the face of the judgment. See Silverman, 940 So.2d at 616 (<HOLDING>). The Wife sought rehabilitative alimony, and
recognizing that the appellate court may reverse an error of law on the face of the judgment when the record contains no transcript of the final hearing recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal holding that the court of appeals may not reverse a trial courts judgment in the absence of properly assigned error holding that the lack of evidence that the magistrate judge examined the trial transcript in its sufficiencyoftheevidence analysis left the court no alternative but to reverse the denial of habeas relief and remand for review of the transcript recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law