Petticrew v. Petticrew, 90-1798
| Decision Date | 03 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1798,90-1798 |
| Citation | 586 So.2d 508 |
| Parties | Dan Charles PETTICREW, Appellant, v. Bonnie L. PETTICREW, Appellee. 586 So.2d 508, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2592 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William A. Greenberg, of Greenberg & Lester, Fern Park, for appellant.
Gary E. Shader and Lynne R. Wilson, of Shader & Stern, Maitland, for appellee.
Dan Charles Petticrew appeals the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He argues no evidence was presented supporting the court's valuation of the family business, and no evidence was presented justifying an award of lump sum alimony. We agree, and after reviewing the overall scheme of property distributed and alimony awarded, conclude the trial court abused its discretion and reverse.
The parties married in September of 1967 and lived together until January, 1989. Two children were born of the marriage, both of whom have reached the age of majority. At the time the lower court entered its final judgment the husband was forty-eight years old and the wife, forty-seven years old. The husband was employed by the family business, Dixie Shower Doors, Inc., and earned $155,000 in 1988 and $139,000 in 1989.
The trial court found Dixie Shower Doors, Inc., to be a marital asset. Both parties presented testimony as to the fair market value of the business. The husband's expert testified that Dixie Shower Doors, Inc., had a fair market value of $340,000, while the wife's expert presented a written report and testified that fair market value was $500,000. In making the $500,000 valuation, however, the wife's expert failed to consider the tax consequences the husband would suffer upon his sale of the business. He also stated, notwithstanding his expert opinion of the business' fair market value, that he could sell the business for more than $500,000. He testified:
You're talking about two different things. When I'm asked to do an appraisal, which I did, I did an acceptable appraisal standards. I came up with what I thought was a fair and reasonable value of $500,000. If you're asking me as a business broker what I could sell the business for, that's a different story.... I'm saying that there is a buyer out there that is willing to buy it for more than my appraised value, that's what I'm saying.
Based upon this testimony, the trial court determined Dixie Shower Doors, Inc., to have a minimum fair market value of $600,000. The husband was then awarded the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polley v. Polley, s. 91-1405
...(Minn.1980). The trial court's valuation is, at best, a speculative evaluation of the parties' PPC interest. See Petticrew v. Petticrew, 586 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). "[T]he starting point for equitable distribution is an award of half [the marital assets] to each party; only upon a sh......
-
Miller v. Miller
...the advantages and disadvantages of lump sum alimony and permanent periodic alimony or some combination thereof. Petticrew v. Petticrew, 586 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (lump sum alimony is not modifiable); Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.2d 534 (Fla.1992) (permanent alimony can be subject to modifi......
-
In re Freeman
...is generally considered a property settlement and not a payment for support, absent unusual circumstances. Petticrew v. Petticrew, 586 So.2d 508 (Fla.App. 5th Dist.1991). The wife argues that this case does present unusual circumstances. She testified that her husband had a history of evadi......
-
Sun Bank/North Florida, N.A. v. Edmunds
...to preclude or strike the testimony of the property owner. Nord's testimony should have been precluded under Petticrew v. Petticrew, 586 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), Walters v. State Rd. Dep't, 239 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), Boynton v. Canal Auth., 311 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), a......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...or what he or she could sell the property for. This is improper, and should be objected to as speculation. [ Petticrew v. Petticrew, 586 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)(expert’s express of confidence in his ability to broker property for amount greater than its appraised value was speculativ......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...not determine whether asset is marital or non-marital based on one party’s guess, assumptions, or speculation); Petticrew v. Petticrew, 586 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (expert appraiser could not express opinion that as business broker he could sell business for more than appraisal value......
-
Cross-Examining Causation Experts
...59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), citing Sun Bank/N. Fla., N.A. v. Edmunds, 624s So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); see also Petticrew v. Petticrew, 586 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). 12. “No weight may be accorded an expert opinion which is totally conclusory in nature and is unsupported by any discerni......