WILLIAM THOMAS FICKA, III
v.
KARLA LYNN BROWN, F/K/A KARLA LYNN FICKA
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 held that the valuation of marital furniture was not supported by competent, substantial evidence, requiring reversal of that portion of the judgment.
[1] The valuation of a marital asset must be based on competent, substantial evidence.
[2] A final judgment of dissolution may be reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 valuation of an asset must be based on competent, substantial evidence.”
Court citing Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1208 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) and § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2018)
In a dissolution of marriage case, both parties appealed the final judgment. The wife argued the valuation of marital furniture lacked competent, subs…
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 Valuation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2023-4157 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-DR-002424
WILLIAM THOMAS FICKA, III, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. KARLA LYNN BROWN, f/k/a KARLA LYNN FICKA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Eric H. DuBois, Judge.
March 27, 2026
MIZE, J.
In this dissolution of marriage case, both parties appeal the trial court's final judgment of dissolution. Each party argues that the trial court committed a number of errors, but we find only one. Appellee/Cross-Appellant Karla Lynn Brown argues that the trial court's valuation of the parties' marital furniture was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Reese v. Reese, 363 So. 3d 1202, 1208 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“[T]he valuation of an asset must be based on competent, substantial evidence." (citing § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2018))). Having reviewed the record, we agree with her. Therefore, we reverse the portion of the final judgment pertaining to the valuation of the marital furniture, and remand with instructions to adjust the equitable distribution of the parties' marital estate accordingly. On remand, the trial court may determine whether it requires an additional evidentiary hearing to comply with this opinion. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur. Nikie Popovich, of Popovich Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Christian D. Smed, of Christian D. Smed, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
2