Staman v. Staman, 92-144
Decision Date | 16 August 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-144,92-144 |
Citation | 622 So.2d 1147 |
Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1839 James A. STAMAN, Appellant, v. Daiva T. STAMAN, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Albert Datz, of Datz, Jacobson & Lembcke, Jacksonville, for appellant/cross-appellee.
George M. McClure, of McClure & Whiteman, St. Augustine, for appellee/cross-appellant.
The former husband appealed and the former wife cross-appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage that, as amended, equally distributed $5.3 million of the parties' marital assets, awarded the former wife an additional $500,000.00 in lump sum alimony, and excluded from marital assets the accounts receivable of the former husband's medical professional association. Finding neither an abuse of discretion nor any error as a matter of law on the issue of alimony, we affirm without further comment the award of lump sum alimony. Section 61.08, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1982); Kuharsky v. Kuharsky, 582 So.2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). As to the former wife's cross-appeal issue, we reverse that portion of the amended final judgment excluding accounts receivable from marital assets as a matter of law, and remand for proceedings in conformity with this decision.
In the valuation of the marital estate, the trial court initially included the discounted value of the accounts receivable of the former husband's professional association. Net accounts receivable were found to be worth $489,247.00. The figures were taken from trial testimony and from the former husband's accountant's valuation of the marital estate as of September 30, 1988, the date for determination of marital assets pursuant to section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). The lower tribunal determined that 35% of the accounts receivable constituted "bad debt" that was to be written off.
Pursuant to the former husband's motion for rehearing or for amendment of judgment, the trial court deleted accounts receivable and an upward adjustment from the marital estate, in reliance on Leone v. Leone, 577 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We find the trial court erred in apparently concluding that, as a matter of law, accounts receivable cannot be included in the valuation of marital assets. First, in furtherance of reversal on this issue, we need not look beyond our prior opinions in Spillert v. Spillert, 564 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Fla 1st DCA), rev. den., 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1990), and Carr v. Carr, 522 So.2d 880, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ( ). See In re: Goldstein, 120 Ariz. 23, 583 P.2d 1343, 1344 (1978); Moulton v. Moulton, 485 A.2d 976 (Me.1984); Thomas v. Thomas, 571 So.2d 499, 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Villaverde v. Villaverde, 547 So.2d 185, 186-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skrabak v. Skrabak
...business, received one-half of as income, from which he was required to make support payments), narrowly construed by Staman v. Staman, 622 So.2d 1147 (Fla.Dis.Ct.App.1993) (holding that trial court erred in concluding that, as matter of law, accounts receivable cannot be included in valuat......
-
Layeni v. Layeni
...in concluding that, as a matter of law, accounts receivable cannot be included in the valuation of marital assets. Staman v. Staman, 622 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Spillert v. Spillert, 564 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Carr v. Carr, 522 So.2d 880, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (find......
-
Parisi v. Miranda
...assets). Accounts receivables, of course, should be properly adjusted and discounted for risk and bad debt. See Staman v. Staman, 622 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Spillert Spillert, 564 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Miranda's expert witness included in the accounts receivable category ......
-
Stern v. Stern
...in the former husband's corporate accounts receivable as a marital asset that was subsequently "awarded" to him. See Staman v. Staman, 622 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Finally, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award the former husband at least a por......
-
§ 10.03 Goodwill
...marital estate if it could be sold. See McReath v. McReath, 335 Wis.2d 643, 800 N.W.2d 399 (2011).[316] See: Florida: Staman v. Staman, 622 So.2d 1147 (Fla. App. 1993). Illinois: In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill.2d 152, 291 Ill. Dec. 601, 824 N.E.2d 177 (2005); In re Marriage of Lee, 24......