750 So.2d 651 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1999), 97-04888, Pinder v. Pinder

Docket Nº:97-04888.
Citation:750 So.2d 651, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D 1484
Party Name:Jacqueline PINDER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Herbert L. PINDER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Case Date:June 25, 1999
Court:Florida Court of Appeals, Second District
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 651

750 So.2d 651 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1999)

24 Fla. L. Weekly D 1484

Jacqueline PINDER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

Herbert L. PINDER, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 97-04888.

Florida Court of Appeals, Second District.

June 25, 1999

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Maynard F. Swanson, Jr., Judge.

Page 652

Mary Ellen Borja, Clearwater, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Karol K. Williams and Allison M. Perry, Tampa, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

BLUE, Judge.

Jacqueline Pinder appeals the equitable distribution and alimony award in the dissolution of her fifteen-year marriage to Herbert L. Pinder. She raises six issues, challenging: (1) the valuation of a preschool business and determination that fifty percent of the business was a marital asset; (2) the valuation of certain Pennsylvania real estate (the preschool property) and determination that fifty percent of the real estate was a marital asset; (3) the equitable distribution of certain nonmarital assets; (4) the failure to distribute marital debt; 1 (5) the valuation of intangible marital assets; and (6) the award of a Florida house to Mr. Pinder as lump sum alimony. Mr. Pinder cross-appeals with five issues, challenging: (1) the lack of permanent alimony; (2) the failure to award special equity in the preschool business; (3) the determination that the Florida house was a nonmarital asset; (4) the failure to recognize an enhancement and/or special equity in the Florida house; and (5) the failure to award attorney's fees and costs. Based on the errors discussed below, we reverse and remand. In doing so, we offer some sympathy for the trial court's work in attempting to sort out the complicated financial affairs of these parties. Nevertheless, further work is necessary to fashion an equitable distribution that comports with the dictates of chapter 61, Florida Statutes (1995). 2

We start first with a very brief factual background. Mr. and Mrs. Pinder were married in 1982, shortly after Mrs. Pinder was divorced from her first husband. Mrs. Pinder bought a house in Florida and the parties lived there after moving from Pennsylvania. Although titled in Mrs. Pinder's name alone, both parties contributed to the mortgage payments and worked on the house. The property settlement from the first marriage was not completed until several years into the second marriage. In the property settlement, Mrs. Pinder...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP