JAMES A. WATFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
TERESA WATFORD, 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.
Court reversed award of specific acreage to wife in equitable distribution, requiring instead a monetary award equal to the cash value of her share of marital appreciation in husband's separate property held in a corporation.
Specific acreage cannot be awarded as equitable distribution of marital appreciation in separate property held through a corporation; instead, a monetary award equal to the cash value of the wife's share must be awarded.
[1] Equitable distribution of marital appreciation in separate property held through a corporation must be awarded as a monetary judgment rather than as a conveyance of speci…
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 divorce, the trial court awarded the wife specific acreage as part of equitable distribution of appreciation in the husband's separate property, …
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 Separate Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
It is conceded that it was error to award specific acreage as part of an equitable distribution to the wife rather than the equivalent cash value of her share of appreciation, during the marriage, of the husband’s separate property. Title to that property is in a corporation in which the husband is a minority shareholder and which is not a party. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a monetary award to the wife.
We also note for the trial court, on remand, that a question has been raised with respect to computing the total award to the wife. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination on the facts presented to it that all the marital appreciation was subject to equitable distribution. Its calculation of the amount, however, included the $67,500 value of a residence, owned during the marriage by the husband and his mother. This is patently in error as the residence was not deemed a marital asset by the court as apparently it did not increase in value during the marriage. On remand, the trial court should modify the final judgment to show that the value of the marital property subject to distribution to is $814,209, the wife’s share is $407,104.50, the husband is entitled to a credit of $33,750 for conveying his one-half interest in the residence, leaving a balance of $373,354.50 now due the wife, toward which the husband may receive an additional $33,750 credit, as provided in the amended final judgment, if his mother also conveys her half interest in the residence to the wife.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
STONE, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emlet v. Emlet, 680 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…parties’ final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm all portions of the trial court’s order other than the award to Former Wife of the enhanced portion of Former Husband’s interest in the medical center partnership. See Watford v. Watford, 652 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). On remand, we direct the trial court to award the enhanced partnership interest to Former Husband and to award Former Wife a marital asset of equivalent value. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, J…