JAMES MARSHALL ANTHONY, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANE F. ANTHONY, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the husband challenged the trial court's final judgment dissolving the marriage, dividing marital assets, and awarding alimony and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's substantive rulings but remanded to correct significant clerical errors in the final judgment regarding the valuation of three marital assets.
The trial court's rulings on dissolution, equitable distribution of assets, alimony, and attorney's fees were affirmed as correct on the merits. However, the final judgment contained clerical errors in three asset valuations that required correction on remand so the parties' rights would be clearly set forth.
[1] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage may be affirmed in part and remanded in part for correction of clerical errors in the description and valuation of marital ass…
[2] Clerical errors in a final judgment of dissolution, even if not substantial enough to warrant reconsideration of equitable distribution, should be corrected to accurately…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find no error in the trial court's rulings in regard to dissolving the parties' marriage, the equitable distribution of the marital assets, or the award of alimony, attorney's fees and costs and, accordingly, affirm those rulings without further discussion.”
The court's primary holding affirming the substantive aspects of the dissolution judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were engaged in a dissolution of marriage action. The evidence at trial established that the parties had $1,200 on deposit in a bank, owne…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Acting Chief Judge.
The husband in this dissolution of marriage action, James Marshall Anthony, appeals the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Diane F. Anthony. We find no error in the trial court’s rulings in regard to dissolving the parties’ marriage, the equitable distribution of the marital assets, or the award of alimony, attorney’s fees and costs and, accordingly, affirm those rulings without further discussion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Gregoire v. Gregoire, 615 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
We must remand, however, for the purpose of correcting the final judgment so that it accurately sets forth the nature and value of three items in the final judgment. The evidence presented at trial established that the parties had $1200 on deposit in a bank, owned Redicare stock with a value between $237 and $285, and that the husband had discharged a marital debt to “Medical Associates.” The final judgment reflects that the parties had $12,000 on deposit in the bank, that the stock was worth $3056, and that “Medical Associates” was an asset with a value of $5000. The judgment then awards fifty percent of those assets to each party. Although these errors are not substantial enough to require reconsideration of the court’s equitable distribution of the parties’ assets, they should be corrected so that the parties’ rights are clearly set forth, e.g. that the wife is entitled to $600 and not $6000 in connection with the funds deposited in the bank.
We, accordingly, remand for the correction of these three errors, but affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
Remanded with instructions.
PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. State, 711 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (convictions on three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based upon three firearms discovered in defendant’s home during a single search violate the prohibition against double jeopardy); Owens v. State, 681 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (convictions on 15 counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based upon 15 firearms discovered in defendant’s home during a single search violate the prohibition against double jeopardy). It is also noteworthy that Un…
-
Francis v. State, 41 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…e of the term “any” in section 790.23 precludes multiple convictions where, during a single episode, the defendant was found to be in possession of more than one firearm. See, e.g., Hill v. State, 711 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Owens v. State, 681 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Plowman v. State, 622 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The State contends that the instant case is distinguishable because Francis was in possession of a firearm and ammunition rather than two or more firearms. It is the State’s co…
-
Davis v. State, 96 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…. State, 711 So. 2d 1221, 1224-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that “the prohibition against double jeopardy precludes more than one conviction for the possession at the same time of multiple firearms by a convicted felon”); see also Owens v. State, 681 So. 2d 1194, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing fifteen charges of possessing a firearm by a convicted felon as violating double jeopardy); Plowman v. State, 622 So. 2d 91, 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (reversing three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Gregoire v. Gregoire, 615 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)