David v. David

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David v. David

784 So. 2d 554, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6581, 2001 WL 497111

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-2405

StatusPublished

This text of 784 So. 2d 554 (David v. David) 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

David v. David, 784 So. 2d 554, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6581, 2001 WL 497111 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Stephen Frank David, Jr. (“husband”) seeks review of the distribution of marital assets.in the final judgment terminating his marriage to Gail David (“wife”). Specifically, he urges that the trial judge erred in failing to extract the special equity awards before equitably dividing the marital property.

The court below valued the parties’ lawn business at $45,000.00 and determined that the husband had a special equity of $7,500.00 in the business. The court also ruled that the business should be allocated as property of the husband in the scheme of equitable distribution. Oddly, however, he also ruled that the value of the business should be split equally. Likewise, wife was awarded a special equity of $18,000.00 in the marital home valued at $100,000.00. The court found that all right, title and interest in the home should vest in the wife, but the value of the home should be equally divided. The trial judge thus made the following distribution:

[555]*555[[Image here]]

Husband does not dispute the special equity awards or the identification or valuation of marital liabilities. Husband contends that the trial judge erred by failing to extract the special equity awards before equitably distributing the marital assets. Husband proposes that the following is the correct allocation of values:

[[Image here]]

Husband is correct in calculating the value of assets available for equitable distribution. The trial court should first ascertain and separate any amount of special equity from the value of the marital assets to be equitably distributed. See Mattingly v. Mattingly, 651 So.2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Also, the value of the asset should be allocated to the party receiving the asset. Because it appears the trial court contemplated an approximate 6%o division of marital assets, the scheme of equitable distribution will have to be reconsidered.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Stephen Frank David, Jr. (“husband”) seeks review of the distribution of marital assets.in the final judgment terminating his marriage to Gail David (“wife”). Specifically, he urges that the trial judge erred in failing to extract the special equity awards before equitably dividing the marital property.

The court below valued the parties’ lawn business at $45,000.00 and determined that the husband had a special equity of $7,500.00 in the business. The court also ruled that the business should be allocated as property of the husband in the scheme of equitable distribution. Oddly, however, he also ruled that the value of the business should be split equally. Likewise, wife was awarded a special equity of $18,000.00 in the marital home valued at $100,000.00. The court found that all right, title and interest in the home should vest in the wife, but the value of the home should be equally divided. The trial judge thus made the following distribution:

[555]*555[[Image here]]

Husband does not dispute the special equity awards or the identification or valuation of marital liabilities. Husband contends that the trial judge erred by failing to extract the special equity awards before equitably distributing the marital assets. Husband proposes that the following is the correct allocation of values:

[[Image here]]

Husband is correct in calculating the value of assets available for equitable distribution. The trial court should first ascertain and separate any amount of special equity from the value of the marital assets to be equitably distributed. See Mattingly v. Mattingly, 651 So.2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Also, the value of the asset should be allocated to the party receiving the asset. Because it appears the trial court contemplated an approximate 6%o division of marital assets, the scheme of equitable distribution will have to be reconsidered.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

784 So. 2d 554, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6581, 2001 WL 497111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-david-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack