ROGERS A. EVERHART, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA A. EVERHART, 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's valuation of a family business worth over $5 million but reversed and remanded to correct three errors in the equitable distribution of marital assets: the former husband was improperly double-charged for $58,465, the former wife was improperly credited for a fully-satisfied debt, and she was credited with an incorrect amount on another debt.
The trial court's business valuation was supported by substantial competent evidence and is upheld. However, three errors in equitable distribution require correction: (1) the former husband should not be charged twice for the $58,465, reducing his equitable distribution assets by that amount; (2) the former wife should not be credited with responsibility for the fully-satisfied $8,190.20 debt; and (3) the former wife should be credited with only $3,896.10 rather than $5,896.10 on the Chase Mastercard debt.
[1] A trial court's valuation of a business as a marital asset is presumed to be correct when supported by substantial competent evidence.
[2] A party cannot be charged twice for the same marital funds used for a down payment on a residence when those funds were a repayment of a loan to a family business.
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“The trial court's valuation of the business was supported by substantial competent evidence.”
Establishes the standard for affirming valuations and the court's rejection of the former husband's overvaluation argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marital estate exceeded $5,000,000, with the primary asset being a family-owned business. During separation, the former husband used $58,…
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
EVANDER, J.
The former husband raises numerous issues in this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The parties’ marital estate exceeded $5,000,000, with the primary asset being a family-owned business. We reject the former husband’s argument that the trial court overvalued this asset. The trial court’s valuation of the business was supported by substantial competent evidence. We do find, however, that there are three errors in the trial court’s equitable distribution order that require correction.
First, the trial court found that during the parties’ separation, the former husband had used $58,465 of marital monies as a down payment on a new residence. The court also found that the former husband was entitled to receive repayment of a $180,000 shareholder loan that the parties had made to the family business. However, the undisputed evidence reflects that the $58,465 used by the former husband as a down payment was, in fact, money he had received from the family business as a partial repayment of the $180,000 loan. Thus, the former husband was improperly charged twice for the same $58,465. As a result, the former husband’s equitable distribution assets column was $58,465 too high.
Second, the trial court found that the former wife was to be responsible for payment of a CitiFinancial Rooms to Go debt of $8,190.20. Because the trial court attempted to effect a 50/50 distribution of the marital estate, the former wife was awarded an additional $8,190.20 of assets to offset this obligation. The former wife should not have been “credited” with this obligation because the evidence reflects that this debt had been fully satisfied during the separation period by either the former husband or by monies from the family business.
Third, the former wife should only have been credited with being responsible to pay $3,896.10 on the Chase Mastercard debt rather than $5,896.10. The balance of this credit card debt had similarly been reduced during the parties’ separation by payment from either the former husband or the family business.
On remand, the trial court should correct these errors in a manner that will effect the court’s intent to divide the marital estate equally. The final judgment is otherwise affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur.