Holmes v. HolmesHolmes v. Holmes
In this dissolution proceeding thе husband appeals from the calculations in the final judgment relating to his special еquities in his separately owned premarital property, now enhanced by joint effоrt, and as to equitable distribution of the marital assets. Additionally, the husband appeals from a post-dissolution money judgment for $100,000,00 which was ordered in the dissolution judgment to be paid as lump sum alimony “as a means of achieving” equitable distribution after the court sorted out the parties’ respective interests in separate and marital properties.1
To begin with, there is no transcript of any of the proceedings below, nor is there a stipulated оr reconstructed record within the purview of
The dissolution judgment thoroughly and with specificity sets forth findings of fact as to the various values of both separately owned and marital real properties, and similarly sеts forth findings of special equities in these properties, resulting in a net of assets which the сourt determined to be amenable to equitable distribution. After tabulation of what each of the parties was awarded in these computations, the court then awarded thе $100,000.00 lump sum alimony award ostensibly to even things up, which, as noted, was reduced later to the separate money judgment.
It is patent, however, that in his calculations the court crеdited the husband‘s special equities in his separate, premarital owned property — now substantially
This theory was rejected in Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1983) with respect to entireties property, and in Gregg v. Gregg, 474 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) with respect to separately owned property, which treated the special equities involved as a capital contribution whereby the contributing spouse obtains a percentage of the value of the acquired property equal to the ratio that the original contribution was to the оriginal total acquisition cost, i.e., a “percentage ratio” theory. This is the theory which the trial court should have followed. Had he done so, of course, the numbers involved in еquitable distribution would have been different and, necessarily, the “means of achieving” it would also have been different.
The judgment of dissolution and the dependant $100,000.00 judgment should thereforе be reversed and the cause remanded for recalculation of all special equity awards in accordance with the “percentage ratio” theory as set forth above.
One final point. In a post judgment proceeding filed pursuant to
We mention this here because we think both parties had their day on рroperty evaluations, and the court‘s findings with respect thereto are final. Accordingly, upon remand the trial court need not retry the entire issue of property values. We remand only for recalculation of the special equities awarded based on the “percentage ratio” theory, with the present property values as the trial court so found them being affirmed as final.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, GARRETT JJ., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P., Senior Judge, concur.