SHIRLEY A. HICKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MERLE L. HICKMAN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
In this dissolution of marriage case we reverse the portion of the final judgment which describes equitable distributions to the parties.
The trial court erred in failing to include among the marital assets considered for equitable distribution a certain portion of the proceeds from the sale of land which had been purchased by the husband three months before the beginning of the nearly 20 year marriage and had been sold in 1984 at a substantial profit. That portion should have been the amount of the enhancement in value of the land during the marriage attributable to the marital funds which were used to pay off the mortgage on the land, together with the enhancement in value of that amount after it was deposited into a joint savings account. See Pfleger v. Pfleger, 558 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Massis v. Massis, 551 So. 2d 587, 588-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Bow en v. Bowen, 543 So. 2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
We reverse the awards described as equitable distributions and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adkins v. Adkins, 650 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…r appreciation to the home should also be considered a marital asset — such as the passive appreciation of the property due to the increase in land values in the area. See Straley v. Frank, 612 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hickman v. Hickman, 572 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Ill We find no merit in the husband’s cross appeal and deem any discussion on the point unnecessary. The amended final judgment of marriage dissolution is affirmed in all respects, save one. The trial court’s exclusion of the e…
-
Gill v. Gill, 632 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…rtain portion of the enhanced value of the business. The court should have considered that portion of the enhanced value of the business that occurred after the gift and which was due to the expenditure of marital labor or funds. Hickman v. Hickman, 572 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).1 [*228] On remand, the court should determine what part of the business’s enhancement in value resulted from marital labor or funds and then, since that value is a marital asset, equitably distribute it. See Sanders v. Sanders, 5…
Authorities Cited
- Massis v. Radi S. Massis, 551 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 543 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Pfleger v. Cresula S. Pfleger, 558 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)