TOM B. STEWART, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
WINIFRED H. STEWART, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1995-06-12
No. 94-483
ERVIN, MINER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
657 So. 2d 917 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution methodology but reversed and remanded due to a scrivener's error in the lump sum alimony calculation.


Facts & Procedural History

The former husband appealed the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities in a divorce judgment. A scrivener's error was identified in …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The former husband challenges several aspects of the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities in the final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage.* We approve the valuation and distribution methodology utilized by the trial court in equitably distributing the marital assets and liabilities. The learned trial judge did an outstanding job in difficult circumstances, fashioning a just and equitable plan of distribution.

There was, however, an apparent scrivener’s error in the computation of the lump sum alimony awarded the former wife as her share of the enhanced value, attributable to marital labor, of certain of the husband’s non-marital assets. The former wife concedes that the trial court’s calculation of the enhanced value of three parcels of real estate was based on the erroneous premise that the husband owned a one-third interest in each parcel; the husband’s stake in each of these properties was in fact an undivided one-sixth interest. Solely for this reason, we are constrained to reverse and remand.

We do not foresee a need for further proceedings beyond those necessary to correct the calculations conceded to be in error, but we leave to the trial court’s discretion whether that correction would necessitate other changes in the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities.

Reversed and remanded.

ERVIN, MINER, and BENTON, JJ., concur. *

The former husband also contests a small portion of the attorney's fees awarded to the wife. This point was submitted without argument and we affirm the award without discussion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Manley J. Hood v. Hood, 41 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
    …of the parties and to amend the final judgment consistent with those recalculations and with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. LAWSON, J., and EDWARDS-STEPHENS, S., Associate Judge, concur. . See Stewart v. Stewart, 657 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw