Staman v. Staman, 92-144

• Decision Date: 16 August 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-144,92-144
• Citation: Staman v. Staman, 622 So.2d 1147 (Fla. App. 1993)
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Week. D1839 James A. STAMAN, Appellant, v. Daiva T. STAMAN, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1147

622 So.2d 1147

18 Fla. L. Week. D1839

James A. STAMAN, Appellant, v.Daiva T. STAMAN, Appellee.

No. 92-144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Aug. 16, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1993.

Albert Datz, of Datz, Jacobson & Lembcke, Jacksonville, for appellant/cross-appellee.

George M. McClure, of McClure & Whiteman, St. Augustine, for appellee/cross-appellant.

MICKLE, Judge.

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 DCA1991).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 DCA1991).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), andCarr v. Carr, 522 So.2d 880, 885(Fla. 1st DCA1988)(finding error in trial court's exclusion, from marital assets, of the tangible assets of husband's medical practice, including accounts receivable).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 DCA1990);Villaverde v. Villaverde, 547 So.2d 185, 186-87(Fla. 3d DCA1989)(increases in value of breadwinner spouse's medical practice during the marriage are to be considered among marital assets).Second, Leone appears to have been the sole Florida decision on which the...