REBECCA WALKER RUDDERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE R. RUDDERMAN, 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 reversed a dissolution judgment due to mathematical errors in asset distribution that resulted in the former wife receiving less than an equal share, requiring the trial court to equalize or justify the unequal distribution.
Mathematical errors in calculating marital asset distribution that resulted in unequal division require reversal and remand for correction or justification under Florida's equal distribution statute.
[1] Mathematical errors in calculating the total marital assets and liabilities in an equitable distribution must be corrected on remand, and the trial court must either equa…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors”
Citing Florida Statute section 61.075(1) regarding the statutory framework for equitable distribution in dissolution cases.
In a dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the former husband $39,774.50 and the former wife $33,330.09 after distributing marital assets a…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The former wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We decline to address any of the former wife’s arguments except for one. It is apparent on the face of the final judgment that the lower court made the following mathematical errors in distributing the marital assets and liabilities: (1) awarding the former wife $1,940.59 (Tricare reimbursement) and $450 (personal property sold by the wife after separation) without including these assets in the total amount of marital assets; and (2) making the wife responsible for the $4,500 in marital debt without subtracting that amount from the total amount of marital assets. These errors resulted in distributions of $39,774.50 to the former husband and $33,330.09 to the former wife. To equalize these amounts, $3,222.20 would need to be subtracted from the former husband’s distribution and added to the former wife’s distribution.
Section 61.075(1) states in pertinent part that “the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.” It goes on to describe the factors to consider. In the instant case, the trial court utilized this statute to justify what it thought was a greater award to the former wife. In reality, the wife received less. We therefore reverse that portion of the. final judgment and remand with directions to either equalize the distributions or justify the unequal distribution. Fugina v. Fugina, 749 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fugina v. Fugina, 749 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Ford v. State, 749 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)