DAVID R. AKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMA J. AKINS, 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 court held that the trial court erred in valuing the husband's business as an asset for equitable distribution and in using incorrect mortgage figures for property valuation.
During a dissolution, the trial court valued the husband's business based on the wife's unsupported opinion and used incorrect mortgage figures when c…
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 Earning Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review a final judgment of dissolution and a judgment awarding attorney’s fees.
In arriving at an equitable distribution, the trial court distributed to the husband, as his principal asset, the business known as “Akins the Artist,” the name under which he earned income as a commercial artist. However, the business had no assets other than some small accounts receivable. The $65,000 value placed on the business was based solely on the wife’s unsupported opinion. The wife’s estimate was arrived at arbitrarily and is simply the amount of gross yearly income. She had no independent knowledge or experience to support her opinion. There is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that the husband’s earnings indicated anything other than his earning capacity. Even if minimal good will is assumed, there was no reliable basis in the evidence from which to conclude that the “business” had a value irrespective of the husband’s individual reputation. Therefore, it was error to include the business as an asset for equitable distribution purposes. See Thompson v. Thompson, 576 So. 2d 267, 270 (Fla.1991).
Additionally, it is undisputed that the court used incorrect mortgage figures, specified in the judgment, in computing the net value of two of the parties’ properties. As to one, the correct amount was $5,000 rather than $8,000 and as to the other, $20,000 rather than $27,500.
Therefore, we reverse the final judgment and the judgment awarding attorney’s fees and remand for further proceedings.
GUNTHER, BOBBY W., STONE, BARRY J. and WARNER, MARTHA C., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akins v. Akins, 839 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…MONACO, J. This is an appeal and cross appeal from a Second Amended Final Judgment rendered by the lower court after remand by this court. Akins v. Akins, 659 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The central issue raised by the appellant, the former husband, is whether the lower court erred in failing to review both equitable distribution and alimony on remand, and in not finding that the two were interrelated and integr…
Authorities Cited
- William deForest Thompson v. Tobitha Thompson, 576 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1991)