Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CYNTHIA PRINCE, Appellant, v. ALIX HONORE, E TAX SOFTWARE, LLC, HP FL INVESTMENT GROUPS, LLC, and HAND OF HEALING HOME HEALTHCARE, INC., Appellees.
The appellant, Cynthia Prince, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, raising several issues, only one of which we find warrants reversal.
In the final judgment, the trial court deemed “the date of filing the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage” as equitable for valuation of assets and liabilities. The trial court also rejected the appellant's request to use a different date for valuation, finding “there was no evidence presented or testimony taken that support her request.” However, without explanation, the trial court accepted the appellee's marital home valuation, which was based on home sales that had occurred more than three years after the filing date. The appellant argues, the appellee concedes, and we agree, that under these circumstances, the trial court erred in accepting the appellee's marital home valuation. See Tritschler v. Tritschler, 273 So. 3d 1161, 1164-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (reversing in part where equitable distribution scheme used different dates of valuation without explanation).
Although “[d]ifferent assets may be valued as of different dates, as, in the judge's discretion, the circumstances require,” section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes (2017), “[t]he trial court's equitable distribution scheme must comply with all the requirements of section 61.075 and be supported by proper findings establishing that the date of valuation is equitable.” Fiala v. Fiala, 333 So. 3d 215, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (quoting Morgan v. Morgan, 327 So. 3d 898, 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
PER CURIAM.
MAY, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 4D22-1766
Decided: August 09, 2023
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)