Benson v. Benson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benson v. Benson

800 So. 2d 739, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17198, 2001 WL 1555452

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 2001

DocketNo. 5D01-116

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 800 So. 2d 739 (Benson v. Benson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. Benson, 800 So. 2d 739, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17198, 2001 WL 1555452 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

HARRIS, J.

Because the trial judge did not adequately explain the basis for the marital distribution, we are required to remand for clarification. It appears, for example, that the court gave the husband credit twice for his student loan, once against the current value of his medical practice and again against the sale of his JCCR shares. The court also failed to explain why bonuses distributed after separation but for services earned during the marriage were not treated as marital assets. The wife contends also that the court did not transfer to her, although agreed to by the husband, the Marsh Landing Country Club membership. Whether the court intended to keep the membership as an incident of the ownership of the home in the Country Club subdivision is not clear. It is necessary, therefore, that we remand to the trial court to list and evaluate the marital assets so that it can be determined whether the distribution is reasonable under the circumstances. As a part of this reevaluation, the court should reconsider its award of alimony and attorney’s fees in light of any new distribution.

REVERSED and REMANDED for reconsideration.

LAMBERT, B., Associate Judge, concurs. SHARP, W., J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HARRIS, J.

Because the trial judge did not adequately explain the basis for the marital distribution, we are required to remand for clarification. It appears, for example, that the court gave the husband credit twice for his student loan, once against the current value of his medical practice and again against the sale of his JCCR shares. The court also failed to explain why bonuses distributed after separation but for services earned during the marriage were not treated as marital assets. The wife contends also that the court did not transfer to her, although agreed to by the husband, the Marsh Landing Country Club membership. Whether the court intended to keep the membership as an incident of the ownership of the home in the Country Club subdivision is not clear. It is necessary, therefore, that we remand to the trial court to list and evaluate the marital assets so that it can be determined whether the distribution is reasonable under the circumstances. As a part of this reevaluation, the court should reconsider its award of alimony and attorney’s fees in light of any new distribution.

REVERSED and REMANDED for reconsideration.

LAMBERT, B., Associate Judge, concurs. SHARP, W., J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

800 So. 2d 739, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17198, 2001 WL 1555452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-benson-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack