GARY S. COLEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON L. COLEMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the husband appeals a final judgment awarding him $3,400 as his interest in the appreciation of the marital residence, based on a prenuptial agreement providing for equal division of appreciation. The court reversed the trial court's determination of property appreciation because it was based on the judge's unsupported assumption about market appreciation rates rather than competent evidence.
The trial court's determination that the property appreciated $4,800 was reversed and the case was remanded because the judge's valuation was based on his personal assumption about appreciation rates rather than competent evidence of record, and the ends of justice required allowing each party to present evidence of the property's appreciated value.
[1] A prenuptial agreement may stipulate that a premarital residence remains the separate property of one spouse, while also providing for an equal division of any appreciati…
[2] A court cannot determine the appreciated value of a marital residence based on a judge's general experience or assumptions without competent evidence presented by the par…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“that by virtue of the Pre-nuptial Agreement, the husband is entitled to an equity of $3400 in the property.”
The trial court's statement of the award to the husband based on the prenuptial agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrior to marriage, the parties executed a prenuptial agreement stipulating that the marital residence would remain the wife's property, but any apprec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prenuptial Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The husband in a dissolution of marriage proceeding appeals the final judgment which, among other things, awarded him $3400 as his interest in the appreciation of the marital residence and for work done thereon during the short term marriage of the parties.
Prior to the marriage the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement in which they had agreed that the marital residence would remain the property of the wife. However, if the property appreciated during the marriage they were to equally divide the value of the appreciation. The final judgment stated “[tjhat by virtue of the Pre-nuptial Agreement, the husband is entitled to an equity of $3400 in the property.” At the close of the trial the court announced to counsel that the property had increased $4800 in value during the marriage; that each party was entitled to one-half of the appreciation; and in addition, the husband was entitled to $1000 for work he had done on the house. In reaching this conclusion the trial judge stated, “It has been my experience generally that property appreciated one percent a month during this period of time.” This would appear to be the basis upon which the trial judge made his determination of the appreciated value of the property, because there is no other competent evidence in the record upon which that determination could be made.
From our perusal of the record and briefs we conclude that the ends of justice would be best served by a remand of this case for further proceedings so that each side can adduce evidence of the appreciated value of the property.
Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment finding the appreciated value of the property was $4800 is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coleman v. Coleman, 427 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Upon review of the record we have concluded that there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s determination of the value of the marital domicile and, accordingly, we affirm the court’s award, 404 So. 2d 751, predicated on that determination. ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Ina Nepola v. Nepola, 935 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…f 317 N. State Road 7 property under the terms of the marital settlement agreement between the parties. Langer v. Langer, 919 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), and cases cited; Phillips v. Phillips, 466 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Coleman v. Coleman, 404 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); 25A Fla. Jur.2d Family Law § 546, at 167 n. 9 (2002). We therefore reverse the order granting the husband’s motion to dismiss and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent here…