MICHELLE L. CLARK, FORMER WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY L. CLARK, FORMER HUSBAND, 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 trial court erred in valuing a marital asset by misreading account statements, requiring reversal and remand for correct valuation and equitable distribution.
[1] The date of filing the petition for dissolution of marriage is an appropriate date for classifying assets as marital.
[2] The date for determining the value of marital assets is the date or dates the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances.
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 intelligenceDuring a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court valued a Fidelity Investment Account based on a misreading of account statements, leading…
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 Bridge-The-Gap Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Michelle L. Clark appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, challenging the trial court’s valuation of several marital assets and her award of two years’ bridge-the-gap alimony. We affirm oh all issues raised, except as to the court’s treatment of the former husband’s Fidelity Investment Account # 5219.
Regarding that asset, the court determined:
At the time of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, the account had a balance of $103,291.00. At the beginning of the marriage, the account had a balance of $107,239.00. Therefore, the account had a greater balance at the beginning of the marriage than it did at the time of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Since there was no evidence that the account increased in value due to marital funds, the Court has no legal basis to designate a portion of this account as a marital asset.
The court did not err in using the petition filing date as the date for valuing the asset. Under section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes (2012), the date the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed is an appropriate date for classifying the parties’ assets as marital, and “[t]he date for determining value of assets .... classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances.” But the account statements in the record reflect a value of $149,009.76 on March 1, 2013, $135,888.40 on March 31, 2013, and $103,290.62 on April 30, 2013. The petition for dissolution in this case was filed on March 8, 2013. It *1262thus appears the trial court misread the account statements.
Therefore, we reverse that portion of the final judgment equitably distributing the parties’ marital assets and liabilities, and remand to the trial court to determine the correct value of the former husband’s Fidelity Investment Account # 5219, and to revise the equitable distribution scheme accordingly. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.