PHILIP SHAPIRO, APPELLANT/HUSBAND, CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
SANDRA G. SHAPIRO, APPELLEE/WIFE, CROSS-APPELLANT; SANDRA G. SHAPIRO, WIFE, APPELLANT/PETITIONER V. PHILIP SHAPIRO, HUSBAND, APPELLEE/RESPONDENT
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.
This case involves a consolidated appeal concerning a dissolution of marriage judgment and a modification of alimony. The appellate court affirmed in part and remanded in part, specifically addressing the calculation of a wife's special equity in a marital home.
The court held that the reduction of the down payment contribution was a permissible correction of an approximation. However, the court erred in deleting the contribution for capital improvements.
[1] A trial court may correct an approximated non-marital contribution amount when recalculating special equity in a marital home.
[2] A trial court errs in deleting a proven non-marital contribution to capital improvements when calculating special equity in a marital home.
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“The court erred, however, in deleting the $3,000 contribution toward capital improvements.”
Establishes the court's finding that the lower court made an error regarding the wife's special equity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a prior dissolution hearing, the wife testified that her non-marital funds of approximately $10,000 were used for a down payment and $3,000 for cap…
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 Capital Improvements cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
In this consolidated action, Husband appeals and Wife cross-appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage after remand (Case No. BE-193) and Wife appeals the court’s modification of an award of permanent alimony (Case No. BH-83). Of the four issues raised, only one merits discussion.
At the original, 1982, dissolution hearing in Case No. BE-193, the Wife testified that approximately $10,000 of her non-marital funds were contributed toward the down-payment of the marital home and $3,000 in her non-marital funds were contributed to capital improvements made to the home shortly after its purchase. Based on these two contributions, the court determined the Wife to have a special equity m the marital home totaling $13,01)0.
On appeal of the final judgment, this '•ourt remanded the matter for the trial court to recalculate the Wife’s special equity in the marital home according to the formula set out in Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983).1 At the hearing on remand, the trial court not only applied the Landay formula, but also redetermined the amount of the Wife’s non-marital contributions, reducing the $13,000 total by more than $3,000.
We affirm the court's <. eduction of the downpayment contribution from $10,000 to $9,842.69 since this appears to be merely a correction of an amount which was approximated at the original hearing. The court ened, howe.er, in deleting the $3,000 contribution toward capital improvements. Stoutamire v. Stoutamire, 321 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1976) and Forehand v. Forehand, 363 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Accordingly, we remand the matter a second time tor the court to calculate the Wife’s special equity in the home, according to the Landay formula, and in light of her non-marital contributions totaling $12,-842.69. In all other respects Case No. BE-193 is affirmed. Likewise, the court’s modification of alimony in Case No. BH-83 is also affirmed.
JOANOS and N1MMONS, JJ., concur. . Shapiro v. Shapiro, 452 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sumner Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1983)
- Shapiro v. Shapiro, 452 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Stoutamire v. Stoutamire, 321 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Utter v. Jacksonville Utils. Mgmt., Inc., 363 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Maxwell Roy Forehand v. Forehand, 363 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)