MARY ANNE HOYE, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN P. HOYE, 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 reversed a marriage dissolution judgment in part because the trial court failed to properly value and distribute all marital assets, including an art collection, escrow funds, and business assets.
A trial court's failure to value and distribute all marital assets, including an art collection, escrow accounts, and business interests, requires reversal and remand.
[1] A trial court must value and distribute all marital assets and cannot base asset distribution on unsupported assumptions about possession without evidentiary support.
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 intelligenceIn a marriage dissolution case, the trial court awarded less than half the value of a Lladro art collection based on an assumption about possession, f…
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
We reverse the final judgment in this marriage dissolution case on three points because certain of the lower court’s findings were either contrary to the evidence or unsupported by sufficient factual findings, and because the court failed to valúate and distribute all the marital assets.
First, we agree with Appellant that the court erred in its distribution of the art collection. In its oral ruling, the trial court apparently accepted Appellant’s testimony that Appellee had taken the Lla-dro collection, a marital asset. Nevertheless, in the final judgment, the trial court awarded less than half the value of the collection, based on the assumption that *15Appellant had retained possession of part of the collection. Second, we conclude that the trial court should have distributed the money held by Appellee in the escrow accounts or provided an explanation for its failure to do so. Finally, we conclude that the failure of the lower court to provide values for the tractor trailer, the trucking business and the Les Quails corporation, all significant assets, requires reversal. § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2007); Reich v. Reich, 652 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Reich v. Bette Ann Reich, 652 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)