BILLIE D. COCHRAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH L. COCHRAN, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's computation of the husband's special equity in the marital home under the Landay formula, increasing the wife's share from $4,729.25 to $7,155.25 based on proper allocation of mortgage indebtedness.
The trial court erred in computing the Landay formula for determining the husband's special equity in the marital residence, and the wife's share must be recalculated to $7,155.25 rather than $4,729.25.
[1] Under the Landay formula, a husband's special equity in marital property purchased with his separate property is computed by allocating mortgage indebtedness equally betw…
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 intelligenceThe husband and wife purchased a residence for $65,000 during their marriage, trading the husband's separate property (valued at approximately $27,860…
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 In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The principal issue in the instant appeal is the correctness of the trial court’s computation of the Landay1 formula in determining the husband’s special equity in a residential home purchased during the marriage by the parties. The parties traded property owned by the husband at the time of this marriage as part payment on the new residence. Based on the only competent evidence adduced at trial, the value of the husband’s separate property at the time of marriage (fair market value less existing encumbrances) was approximately $27,860.00. The value of the new residence at purchase was $65,000.00, a value which had increased to $85,000.00 at the time of dissolution.
As we compute it, after equal allocation of the mortgage indebtedness on the new residence, the wife’s share of the new residence totaled $7,155.25, rather than the figure of $4,729.25 arrived at by the trial court, which amount was ordered to be paid to the wife.
Other than correcting this computational error, we affirm the lower court’s judgment. An additional amount of $2,426.00 should be paid by the husband to the wife for the value of her share of the residence.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Landay v. Landay, 429 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1983).