LARRY J. INGLE, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY A. INGLE, 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's distribution of marital assets in a dissolution of marriage but struck the trial court's revaluation of the marital residence on remand. The court found that while the original $292,762 valuation of the home was well-supported by evidence, the trial court exceeded the scope of the appellate mandate by revaluing the property at $160,000 without any evidentiary support.
The original valuation of the marital residence at $292,762 was proper and well within the trial court's discretion. The revaluation to $160,000 on remand was unsupported by evidence and exceeded the scope of the remand order, which required only findings of fact to support the existing distribution, not reconsideration of the valuation itself.
[1] A trial court may revalue marital property on remand only if the appellate court's mandate directs such reconsideration or if new evidence is presented.
[2] A trial court's revaluation of marital property without new evidence or specific direction from an appellate court exceeds the scope of the remand mandate.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Therefore, the trial court was well within its discretion in valuing the property at 292,762.”
Establishes that the original valuation fell within the range of evidence and was a proper exercise of trial court discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court awarded the marital residence to the wife and valued it at $292,762. The wife's expert apprai…
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 Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage following remand by this court. On remand the trial court was to provide findings of fact pursuant to sections 61.075 and 61.08, Florida Statutes (1993), regarding the distribution of marital assets and the denial of rehabilitative alimony. Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So. 2d 223, (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The trial court articulated these findings in the amended final judgment. However, in doing so, the trial court revalued the parties’ marital residence which it had distributed to the wife. We affirm the distribution of assets but strike the revaluation of marital residence.
At the conclusion of the trial on the wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the wife the marital residence. In the original final judgment, the trial court valued the residence at $292,762.00. At trial the wife’s expert, a licensed residential appraiser, testified that the value of the home was $215,000. The husband’s two experts valued the property at $315,000 and $296,000. The only other evidence regarding the value of the property came from the parties themselves. The wife valued the property at $215,000 while the husband valued it at $400,-000. Therefore, the trial court was well within its discretion in valuing the property at 292,762.
On remand, the trial court substituted the $292,762.00 figure with a $160,000 valuation. We can only assume that this revaluation was done in an effort to demonstrate the trial court’s belief that the original distribution was fair and equal to the parties. We make this assumption because no evidence was presented on remand and the new valuation of the home is a significant departure from the opinions expressed by the expert witnesses, the parties, and the trial court’s original valuation. Notwithstanding whatever good motives the trial court may have had, there is no evidence in the record to support the revaluation.
Moreover, the trial court’s revaluation of the home exceeds the scope of the mandate from this court. When the case was remanded, this court was satisfied that there was no error in the trial court’s valuation. Although this court required findings of fact to support the unequal distribution, it did not direct the trial court to reconsider the valuation of the residence.
Accordingly we affirm the distribution of the marital property but strike the revaluation of the parties’ marital residence.
AFFIRMED; Revaluation of parties’ marital residence STRICKEN.
GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., and TOMBRINK, R., Associate J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ketcher v. Deirdre E. Ketcher, 198 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…nan, 184 So. 3d 583, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that trial court exceeded the scope of the mandate by reducing duration of alimony award because that issue was affirmed in the original appeal and therefore was law of the case); Ingle v. Ingle, 689 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding that trial court exceeded the scope of the mandate by revaluing marital residence when the case was remanded only to make findings to support the unequal distribution of marital assets); cf. Bass v. State Farm Life…
Authorities Cited
- Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)