Hickman v. Hickman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hickman v. Hickman

572 So. 2d 1021, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 146, 1991 WL 1988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 9, 1991

DocketNo. 90-00298

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 572 So. 2d 1021 (Hickman v. Hickman) 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

Hickman v. Hickman, 572 So. 2d 1021, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 146, 1991 WL 1988 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage case we reverse the portion of the final judgment which describes equitable distributions to the parties.

The trial court erred in failing to include among the marital assets considered for equitable distribution a certain portion of the proceeds from the sale of land which had been purchased by the husband three months before the beginning of the nearly 20 year marriage and had been sold in 1984 at a substantial profit. That portion should have been the amount of the enhancement in value of the land during the marriage attributable to the marital funds which were used to pay off the mortgage on the land, together with the enhancement in value of that amount after it was deposited into a joint savings account. See Pfleger v. Pfleger, 558 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Massis v. Massis, 551 So.2d 587, 588-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Bow[1022]*1022en v. Bowen, 543 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

We reverse the awards described as equitable distributions and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage case we reverse the portion of the final judgment which describes equitable distributions to the parties.

The trial court erred in failing to include among the marital assets considered for equitable distribution a certain portion of the proceeds from the sale of land which had been purchased by the husband three months before the beginning of the nearly 20 year marriage and had been sold in 1984 at a substantial profit. That portion should have been the amount of the enhancement in value of the land during the marriage attributable to the marital funds which were used to pay off the mortgage on the land, together with the enhancement in value of that amount after it was deposited into a joint savings account. See Pfleger v. Pfleger, 558 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Massis v. Massis, 551 So.2d 587, 588-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Bow[1022]*1022en v. Bowen, 543 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

We reverse the awards described as equitable distributions and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 So. 2d 1021, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 146, 1991 WL 1988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-hickman-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack