GEORGE R. BURK, APPELLANT,
v.
LILLIAN ANDREA BURK, 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 a significant mathematical error in calculating the equity of the marital home may materially affect equitable distribution and warrants reconsideration.
The trial court incorrectly calculated the equity in the marital home by $10,000 and refused to correct the error upon motion for rehearing. The marit…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George R. Burk (Husband) appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage asserting numerous errors with respect to equitable distribution of the marital assets. We find only one issue with merit. The Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to correct a $10,000 mathematical error in calculating the parties’ equity in the marital home. We agree.
The marital home, awarded to the Wife, was' found to have a fair market value of $105,000, encumbered by a mortgage with a balance of $20,000. The final judgment incorrectly reflected the home to have an equity of $75,000, instead of the correct amount of $85,000. The trial court refused to reconsider distribution of the marital assets when the math error was called to its attention on motion for rehearing.
We find that a mathematical error in the amount of $10,000 is significant when viewed in the context of a marital estate having a net value of less than $200,000, and may have materially affected an equitable distribution of the marital assets.
Accordingly, we REVERSE that part of the final judgment providing for equitable distribution and REMAND for reconsideration of an equitable distribution of the marital assets in view of the correct value of the marital home. The final judgment in all other respects is AFFIRMED.
WOLF, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…denied, 592 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1991); and Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993), rev. denied, 644 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1994). The trial court also indicated the amount as $25,-000 instead of $24,000, which should be corrected. Burk v. Burk, 666 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The husband’s expenditure of $25,000 from this fund for redecorating his office should have been deducted from the fund before assessing each party with half of $63,-580. As the valuation of the husband’s business should have a…