JOSEPH FUGINA, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA ELAINE FUGINA, 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 undervaluing the parties' business inventory, requiring a remand to adjust the equalization note.
The parties appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment. The trial court valued the parties' consignment shop business at $4,000, despite testimony va…
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 Valuation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph Fugina appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court’s valuation and distribution of marital assets. Although Cynthia Fugina was awarded a greater share of the parties’ assets, she was required to execute a promissory note in favor of Joseph, secured by a mortgage, to equalize the distribution. We find no abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
However, we do agree that the trial court erred in valuing the parties’ business (a consignment shop) at $4,000. Joseph claimed that the business was worth between $50,000 to $70,00 but the court was not required to accept that value. See Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(trial court’s function is to determine the value of marital assets and is not bound to choose one value advanced by the parties). According to Cynthia, the business’ only value is its inventory, which she valued at about $9,000.
The trial court determined that the value of the consignment shop is its inventory but assessed that value at $4,000. The lowest value for the business inventory is $9,000, as testified to by Cynthia. Thus, we remand with instructions to add $2,500 to the note Cynthia was required to give Joseph to equalize the distribution.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holliday v. State, 781 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…IRMED. SHARP, W. and PLEUS, J.J., concur. . See U.S. Const, amend. V; Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. . Although this claim was not raised in the trial court, double jeopardy rights are fundamental in nature and can be raised at any time. Ford v. State, 749 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).…
-
Roedel v. State, 773 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…in the record to indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy or statutory bar violation. See Novaton, 634 So. 2d at 609. This type of error may also be raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. Johnson, 483 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1986); Ford v. State, 749 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and sentence for the lesser offense of driving without a valid license. We also note conflict with Lanier v. State, supra. AFFIRMED in part; Judgment REVERSED; Sentence VACATED as to the Of…
-
Stacey v. State, 83 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…mpering with physical evidence. On each of these counts the circumstantial proof was sufficient to support the jury verdict. Based upon double jeopardy grounds, we vacate the conviction and sentence for manufacture of methamphetamine. Ford v. State, 749 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART. GRIFFIN, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)