JAN MATTINGLY, N/K/A JAN NICHOLS, APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS E. MATTINGLY, 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 trial court erred in including the wife's special equity award in the distribution of marital assets.
The wife appealed a judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing the trial court improperly included her $30,000 special equity in the marital assets …
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
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Jan Mattingly, now known as Jan Nichols (the wife), appeals a judgment of dissolution of marriage. Of the two issues the wife raises, we agree that the trial court erred in including the wife’s special equity award in the distribution of marital assets. Accordingly, we reverse.
The wife correctly argues that the trial court erred in considering her $30,000 special equity as part of the marital assets for the purpose of equitable distribution. The trial court first should have ascertained the amount of her special equity and separated that amount from the value of the remaining marital assets for the purpose of calculating the value of the assets available for equitable distribution. See Heinrich v. Heinrich, 609 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution portion of the final judgment and remand for recalculation of the value of marital assets of the parties minus the $30,000 special equity to which the wife is entitled. Thereafter, the trial court must distribute the marital assets equitably. We also note that the final judgment does not address which party is granted possession of the marital residence. The trial court should address that issue at the time it enters its order on distribution of the marital assets.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mattingly v. Mattingly, 685 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…e was not fully complied with. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on November 18, 1993. The -wife successfully appealed that final judgment. Mattingly v. Mattingly, 651 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In that opinion, this court reversed the final judgment of dissolution and remanded the case with directions that the trial court separate the wife’s $30,000 special equity in the marital residence from the remainder of the marit…
-
David v. David, 784 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…t in calculating the value of assets available for equitable distribution. The trial court should first ascertain and separate any amount of special equity from the value of the marital assets to be equitably distributed. See Mattingly v. Mattingly, 651 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Also, the value of the asset should be allocated to the party receiving the asset. Because it appears the trial court contemplated an approximate 6%o division of marital assets, the scheme of equitable distribution will have to b…
Authorities Cited
- Heinrich v. Heinrich, 609 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)