DONALD LILLY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LYNNE LILLY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 divorce case, the Florida appellate court reviews the trial court's distribution of marital assets, alimony awards, and retirement account valuations. The court reverses the trial court's decision to revalue retirement accounts using a different valuation date without evidentiary support, but affirms all other aspects of the final judgment.
The trial court erred in changing the retirement account valuation date from the trial date to the date the Final Judgment was entered without any evidentiary basis to support the new valuations. All other equitable distribution and alimony awards are affirmed.
[1] A trial court errs by changing the valuation date and values of marital assets without an evidentiary basis.
[2] A trial court must establish the value of marital assets based on competent, substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes, gives the trial court discretion to pick an equitable date to value assets, section 61.075(3) requires the trial court to establish a value based on competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the legal framework requiring evidentiary support for asset valuations despite discretion in selecting valuation dates
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald and Lynne Lilly were married in 1996 with no children. Donald filed for dissolution in 2006. After an August 2008 trial, the trial court entere…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Both parties appeal the Amended Final Judgment in this dissolution of marriage case. The husband raises three issues, all relating to equitable distribution. On cross appeal, the wife raises six issues relating to equitable distribution, permanent and rehabilitative alimony, and attorney’s fees. We reverse only as to the trial court’s valuation of the parties’ retirement accounts. No other issues merit discussion.
The parties were married in 1996, and had no children. The husband filed for dissolution in 2006. After an August 2008 trial, the trial court entered a Final Judgment on January 30, 2009 and an Amended Final Judgment in February 2009. Both parties timely appealed.
In the Amended Final Judgment, the trial court awarded the wife $1,500 a month in permanent alimony and $1,000 a month rehabilitative alimony for eighteen months. The trial court awarded the wife half of the appreciation of the husband’s home, or $80,000. It also awarded her half of the marital portion of three retirement accounts. In the Final Judgment, the court valued these accounts as of the trial date based on the evidence presented. But in the Amended Final Judgment, the court valued them as of January 30, 2009, the date the Final Judgment was entered, *1023to reflect a downturn in the economy as asserted by the husband. The court erred by changing the valuation date and values without any evidentiary basis. Although section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes, gives the trial court discretion to pick an equitable date to value assets, section 61.075(3) requires the trial court to establish a value based on competent, substantial evidence. Reddell v. Reddell, 899 So.2d 1154, 1155-56 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The wife correctly argues that the husband’s bare assertions in a motion for rehearing were not evidence. Although the value of the assets may well have dropped, as the husband asserted, he failed to present any evidence to support this assertion or the court’s findings. Therefore, we reverse the Amended Final Judgment as to this issue only, and remand with instructions that the trial court either correct the judgment by inserting the values set forth in the original Final Judgment, which were based upon the evidence presented at trial, or hold an evidentiary hearing before reconsidering these values.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lilly v. Lilly, 113 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…SAWAYA, J. This appeal is a sequel to an appeal in the same dissolution of marriage case that we decided three years ago. Lilly v. Lilly, 35 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). In the first appeal this court affirmed an award of rehabilitative alimony to the former wife (Wife). The question presented in the current appeal is whether the trial court properly converted the rehabilitative alimony award to…
Authorities Cited
- LaFLEUR v. State, 899 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)