WILLIAM A. CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY LYNN CARTER, 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.
The Fourth District reversed a dissolution judgment because the trial court improperly refused to consider the wife's separately-held savings account in determining equitable distribution, support, and attorney's fees without adequate justification.
A trial court must consider a spouse's separately-held savings account in determining equitable distribution of marital property, support, and attorney's fees unless there is a valid basis for exclusion.
[1] A trial court must consider a spouse's separately-held savings account in determining equitable distribution of marital property, child support, and attorney's fees unles…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court designated the wife's individually-held savings account as excess earnings from the last year of marriag…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
We recognize that a trial court, in determining a proper equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage, may refuse to divide amounts in a separately-held account absent a showing of special equity or a showing of great need or other justification. Adams v. Adams, 466 So. 2d 333, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). However, the trial court designated a savings account held individually by the wife as excess earnings acquired during the last year of the marriage and expressly refused to consider the account in determining claims for support and the distribution of assets and the award of attorney’s fees. We find no basis in this record for the trial court’s refusal to consider the wife’s separately-held savings account.
Therefore we reverse on the authority of Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1985) and Canakaris v. Cankaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We remand this matter to the trial court to reconsider its distribution of the marital property, the award of child support and attorney’s fees in light of the wife’s separately-held savings account and the checking account in the amount of $7,000 held individually by the husband.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1985)
- Adams v. Sunny L. Adams, 466 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)