Sell v. Sell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sell v. Sell

928 So. 2d 359, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15329, 2005 WL 2373435

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-1185

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 928 So. 2d 359 (Sell v. Sell) 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

Sell v. Sell, 928 So. 2d 359, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15329, 2005 WL 2373435 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the Husband appeals from an Order Clarifying a Final Judgment of Dissolution. Although the Husband argues that several conclusions of the trial court were erroneous, we agree with him on only one. In the Order on appeal, the trial court valued certain of the parties’ banking accounts at $377,000 and then divided the amount in half between the parties although the husband had already paid the wife $50,000 out of these accounts pursuant to the parties’ prenuptial agreement. Because the Husband had already paid the [360]*360wife $50,000 from these accounts pursuant to their prenuptial agreement, it was erroneous to value this asset at $377,000 and thus allow the wife to essentially “double dip” from this asset.

On remand, the trial court will need to value the accounts minus the $50,000, and enter an amended final judgment consistent therewith. As to all other points related to the Order, and otherwise, we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the Husband appeals from an Order Clarifying a Final Judgment of Dissolution. Although the Husband argues that several conclusions of the trial court were erroneous, we agree with him on only one. In the Order on appeal, the trial court valued certain of the parties’ banking accounts at $377,000 and then divided the amount in half between the parties although the husband had already paid the wife $50,000 out of these accounts pursuant to the parties’ prenuptial agreement. Because the Husband had already paid the [360]*360wife $50,000 from these accounts pursuant to their prenuptial agreement, it was erroneous to value this asset at $377,000 and thus allow the wife to essentially “double dip” from this asset.

On remand, the trial court will need to value the accounts minus the $50,000, and enter an amended final judgment consistent therewith. As to all other points related to the Order, and otherwise, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

928 So. 2d 359, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 15329, 2005 WL 2373435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sell-v-sell-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack