JAMES GOTSIS, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA GOTSIS, 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred by failing to assign a valuation date for marital assets as required by statute.
The parties settled child custody and support, leaving only equitable distribution of assets for the final hearing. The trial court identified marital…
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 Date For Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
[*208] COVINGTON, Judge.
The former husband, James Gotsis, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We reverse that portion of the order relating to the equitable distribution of the parties’ marital assets and remand for the trial court to make the requisite statutory findings.
The parties settled the issues of child custody, visitation and child support before the final hearing. The only issue before the court at the final hearing was the equitable distribution of the assets. Although the trial court found that the marital home, the husband’s service account and the husband’s escrow account were marital assets, the court did not assign a valuation date to any of these assets. Pursuant to section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1999), “[t]he date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances.” Thus, the trial court should have set the date or dates at which the parties’ assets would be valued.
The trial court may be able to assign a valuation date by reviewing the record and without conducting a new trial. However, if the court is unable to do so, then a new trial will be necessary. In all other aspects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make the appropriate statutory findings.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. M.J.M. and A.M.R., 217 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…51, 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding that equivocal findings were insufficient to support the termination of parental visitation). We are therefore required to reverse the disestablishment order and remand for reconsideration. See Gotsis v. Gotsis, 813 So. 2d 207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We make no determination as to whether M.J.M, will be able to meet his burden to show substantial compliance or just cause. See All Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Dep’t of Admin. Hearings, 55 So. 3d 670, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (…