FRANCES FAWCETT, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN C. GAINEY, 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 held that the trial court's valuation of the wife's jewelry for equitable distribution was not supported by substantial competent evidence.
During a marriage dissolution, the husband listed the wife's jewelry at $10,000. However, his counsel conceded during trial that a portion was non-mar…
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 Nonmarital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
Frances Fawcett (the wife) appeals the final order entered by the trial court dissolving her marriage to John Gainey (the husband). We affirm in all respects except one.
The wife claims that the trial court reversibly erred in equitably distributing her jewelry. She maintains that the trial court’s $10,000.00 valuation of her jewelry for purposes of equitable distribution is not supported by substantial competent evidence. We agree.
The husband listed jewelry valued at $10,000.00 on his financial affidavits, in his pre-trial memorandum, and in his proposed equitable distribution schedule. Yet, during trial, the husband’s counsel conceded:
Okay. And I think we can all agree that [$]3,500 to [$]4,000 of [the $10,000.00] is a non-marital engagement ring that was given to her before the marriage. So
that drops it down to about six grand. However, in the final dissolution order, the trial court ruled:
9. WIFE’S JEWELRY. The wife has jewelry with an approximate marital value of $10,000.00 as of the date of filing. That jewelry should remain the property of the wife as equitable distribution.
Since the husband agreed that the wife’s engagement ring was a pre-marital gift and, thus, a nonmarital asset, and he agreed that the remaining jewelry was valued at $6,000.00, we reverse and remand for the entry of an amended final judgment increasing the husband’s equalizing payment by $2,000.00.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
ORFINGER, J., and BOATRIGHT, J., Associate Judge, concur.