STEPHEN MCCORD BOWEN, HUSBAND
v.
JESSICA VOLZ, F/K/A JESSICA BOWEN, WIFE
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.
# Legal Brief In a dissolution of marriage case, the First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's equal division of a closely held marital business, holding that awarding joint ownership to former spouses is improper and requires the parties to present proper valuation evidence on remand so the court can award the asset to one spouse and devise an equitable distribution plan that minimizes business disruption. The court affirmed the trial court's valuation of the Lexus automobile but rejected the appellant's arguments concerning that valuation.
[1] A trial court errs by leaving parties as joint owners of a closely held business in a dissolution of marriage judgment.
[2] Granting a former spouse a shared interest in the stock of a closely held corporation is improper as it forces former spouses to operate as business partners.
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© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Valuation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D18-912 _____________________________
STEPHEN MCCORD BOWEN, Husband,
Appellant,
v. JESSICA VOLZ, f/k/a JESSICA BOWEN, Wife,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Jack M. Schemer, Judge.
April 11, 2019 PER CURIAM.
In this appeal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court divided the parties’ marital business and distributed to each party a fifty percent interest due to the dearth of evidence presented on the company’s actual worth. In spite of the insightful evidentiary comments from the circuit judge at trial, we agree with the Third District’s decision in Menendez v. Rodriguez-Menendez, 871 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), in which the Third District found that the parties’ business asset was not properly valued by the court below. Accordingly, it held that “it was improper for the trial court to leave the parties as joint owners of this closely held business.” Id. at 952. It rested its decision on Robbins v. Robbins,
2
549 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in which the court observed that “granting a former spouse a shared interest in the stock of a closely held corporation has the effect of ‘requiring the former spouses to operate as business partners. Such a financial arrangement is intolerable.’” Menendez, 871 So. 2d at 952 (quoting Robbins, 549 So. 2d at 1033-34). The remedy in Menendez—which we endorse and apply in the present case—was as follows:
The parties must . . . on remand present proper valuation evidence for [the company] so that the trial court may, as the parties agree, award this asset to one of the spouses and “devise a plan of distribution which causes the least interference with the ongoing business of the corporation, yet which is practical and beneficial to both spouses.”
Id. (quoting Robbins, 549 So. 2d at 1034); Accord Garrison v. Garrison, 255 So. 3d 877, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
We reject Appellant’s arguments concerning the valuation of the Lexus automobile.
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Joseph L. Mannikko of Mannikko & Baris, Macclenny, for Appellant. James T. Keenan of James T. Keenan, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Revalle Robbins v. Robbins, 549 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Garrison v. Catheline Garrison, 255 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Norberto Menendez v. Rodriguez-Menendez, 871 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)