HOWARD E. GOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
RITA A. GOOD, 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 this matrimonial dissolution appeal, the trial court on remand awarded the wife 50% of corporate stock in a closely held corporation as part of equitable asset distribution, but made the award based on an erroneous factual premise that the husband owned 100% of the corporation when he actually owned only approximately 97% (500 of 520 shares). The appellate court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the stock award based on the correct ownership percentages.
The appellate court held that the trial court's award was based on an erroneous factual assumption that the husband owned 100% of the corporation, when in fact the ownership was divided among the husband (approximately 97%), his father (10 shares), and the wife (10 shares). The court could not determine the trial judge's intent had the award been predicated on the correct ownership structure.
[1] A trial court's award of corporate stock as equitable distribution must be based on the correct existing ownership interests in the corporation.
[2] A court may award a party an equitable portion of the other party's corporate stock in a dissolution of marriage proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Conceivably, in effecting an equitable distribution of marital assets, the court might have awarded the wife some equitable portion of the husband's corporate stock or of his interest in other marital assets.”
The appellate court's directive from the prior appeal that guided the trial court's decision to award stock to the wife.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoward E. Good and Rita A. Good were dissolving their marriage. The marital assets included stock in Howard Good & Associates, Inc., a closely held co…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Appellant, Howard E. Good, seeks review of an amended final judgment for dissolution of marriage entered after remand from this court. We reverse and remand with directions.
In Good v. Good, 458 So. 2d 839, 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), we said:
Conceivably, in effecting an equitable distribution of marital assets, the court might have awarded the wife some equitable portion of the husband’s corporate stock or of his interest in other marital assets.
Pursuant to that directive, the trial court in paragraph 3 of the amended final judgment provided:
3. Pursuant to the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeal wherein it stated “conceivably, in effecting an equitable distribution of marital assets, the Court might have awarded the wife some equitable portion of the husband’s corporate stock, which stock interest represents a 100% interest in said corporation,” the Court awards to the wife as lump sum alimony, and to achieve an equitable distribution of the assets of the parties, fifty per cent. (50%) of the capital stock of Howard Good & Associates, Inc. The Husband is hereby directed to transfer to the wife fifty per cent. (50%) of his stock holdings in said corporation so that the wife will be a fifty per cent. (50%) owner of said eorp.
The record is clear, as stated by this court in its prior opinion, that, at the time of the final hearing, “[t]he husband owns approximately 500 shares of stock in this closely held corporation, his father owns ten shares, and the wife owns ten shares.” Id. at 840. Therefore, it is apparent that the trial judge, when making his award, mistakenly believed that the husband owned a 100% interest in the corporation. On this record, we are unable to ascertain what the intent of the trial judge would be had he predicated the award of stock to the wife on the correct existing ownership of the corporation. Accordingly, we again reverse and remand the amended final judgment which otherwise fairly distributed the parties’ assets. On remand, the trial judge is directed to further consider the award of corporate stock in light of the ownership interests that presently exist.
RYDER, C.J., and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Good v. Good, 458 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Borst v. Borst, 458 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)