CHARLES E. BAYLISS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
BARBARA S. BAYLISS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court amended its prior opinion to correct a mathematical error in the calculation of a special equity award.
The original opinion in Bayliss v. Bayliss incorrectly stated the calculation for a special equity award. The court is now correcting this specific po…
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.
COBB, Chief Judge.
Sua sponte we vacate that portion of the original opinion in this case (Bayliss v. Bayliss, 472 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)) which reads as follows:
Utilizing the percentage ratio formula approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983), the trial court should have awarded to the husband, Charles Bayliss, his one-half share of the E.F. Hutton account, plus a special equity of one-half of 40/244 (or .082) of the remainder. This computation, of course, is subject to the orders of the trial court to establish parity between the parties because of partial distributions or equities in other properties, which orders are not challenged on this appeal. There was a judgment award of $18,000 ($3,700 to husband, $14,300 to wife) for these purposes.
Id. at 486. We hereby substitute the following in its place:
Utilizing the percentage ratio formula approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983), the trial court should have awarded to the husband, Charles Bayliss; his one-half share of the E.F. Hutton account, plus a special equity of one-half of 40/244 of the entire consideration. This computation, of course, is subject to the orders of the trial court to establish parity between the parties because of partial distributions or equities in other properties, which orders are not challenged on this appeal. There was a judgment award of $18,000 ($3,700 to husband, $14,300 to wife) for these purposes.
We have jurisdiction to do this during this term of court, which does not end until the second Tuesday in January, 1986. See § 35.10, Fla.Stat. (1983); Higdon v. State, 465 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1981).
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delco Indus., Inc. v. State, 519 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…accurate representation of the products or the furnishing of a place where solicitors could perform their work is sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship. In M & L Distributors, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 479 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), we said: Without detailing all of the proof adduced, we feel that recited above demon [*1112] strates the manifest weight of the evidence compelling the conclusion appellant was concerned only with making a profit and not…
Authorities Cited
- Sumner Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1983)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges OF the Dist. Court OF Appeal, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1981)
- Higdon v. State, 465 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Bayliss v. Bayliss, 472 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)