SMITH
v.
SMITH
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 marital dissolution appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether the trial court improperly credited Former Husband twice for a $950,000 tax liability payment in equitable distribution. The court agreed that the double-crediting was erroneous and remanded for correction while affirming all other aspects of the judgment.
Yes, the trial court erred by double-crediting the $950,000 tax payment. This inadvertent duplication must be corrected on remand. All other aspects of the amended final judgment are affirmed.
[1] In equitable distribution proceedings, an asset paid by either spouse cannot be credited twice to the same party; double-crediting of a single payment constitutes reversi…
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 intelligence“[T]he amended final judgment inadvertently distributed this $22,041 asset to Former Husband twice, which is to be corrected on remand.”
Establishes the legal principle that double-credited assets in equitable distribution must be corrected on remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were in the process of dissolving their marriage. A 2018 joint tax liability existed for which Former Husband paid $950,000. In the amende…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
November 15, 2024 PER CURIAM.
The parties appeal from an amended final judgment dissolving their marriage and equitably distributing their assets. Former Wife argues that the trial court erred when it credited Former Husband $950,000 (paid to resolve a 2018 joint tax liability) twice in the equitable distribution. We agree and remand for correction on this issue. See Palmer v. Palmer, 316 So. 3d 411, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[T]he amended final judgment inadvertently distributed this $22,041 asset to Former Husband twice, which is to be corrected on remand.”). We otherwise affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions. EISNAUGLE, HARRIS, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________