Vanzant v. Vanzant
82 So. 3d 991
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Vanzant appeals an amended final judgment of dissolution challenging equitable distribution, alimony, and child support.
- Wife cross-appeals, contesting alimony and two equitable distribution issues.
- Trial court allocated assets and liabilities, yielding a greater net share to the wife, with a miscalculated offset from mortgage debt.
- Liquor store business valuation was $425,000 without evidentiary support; court allegedly split the difference between party valuations.
- Alimony and child support awards were based on net income not supported by the record; remand ordered for proper findings.
- Court affirms some ancillary rulings (property appraisal fees and life insurance) but reverses key financial distributions and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the equitable distribution was proper | Vanzant alleges unequal division without adequate findings. | Wife contends distribution was appropriate given assets. | Equitable distribution reversed and remanded for equal distribution or explicit rationale. |
| Whether the liquor store valuation was proper | Vanzant asserts valuation lacked evidentiary support and relied on split difference. | Wife asserts valuation reflects marital asset; supported by evidence. | Liquor store valuation reversed; remanded for proper valuation. |
| Whether alimony and child support awards were properly calculated | Awards based on purported net income, which record does not support. | Trial court believed net income supported by records. | Alimony and child support reversed; remanded for findings on need and ability to pay, based on net income. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collinsworth v. Collinsworth, 624 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (requires explicit findings to support unequal distribution)
- Augoshe v. Lehman, 962 So.2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (valuation must be based on competent evidence, not party ideology)
- Spillert v. Spillert, 564 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (valuation methodologies must rely on evidence, not compromise between positions)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980) (alimony determination requires net income support and need findings)
- Chaney v. Fife, 18 So.3d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (net income must be supported by competent evidence for child support)
- Hamm v. Hamm, 492 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (stock ownership timing not determinative of marital asset status)