Summary
The Florida appellate court reviewed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage involving equitable distribution and related issues concerning the former husband's State Farm insurance agency. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded solely to correct a scrivener's error regarding the duration of the former husband's responsibility for the former wife's car payments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the former wife was entitled to a share of the alleged enhanced value of the former husband's State Farm Insurance Agency.
- Whether the trial court improperly relied on or was influenced by its recitation of the parties' participation in marriage counseling.
- Whether the final judgment contained a scrivener's error regarding the period for which the former husband was required to make the former wife's car payments.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err by failing to award the former wife a portion of the alleged enhanced value of the former husband's State Farm Insurance Agency.
- The record did not show that the trial court's recitation of the parties' participation in marriage counseling reflected an improper motive or influenced the final judgment.
- The final judgment had to be remanded for correction of a scrivener's error stating that the former husband was responsible for the former wife's car payments for one year when other provisions showed that the intended period was two years.
Key quotations
“We remand the final judgment, however, for correction of what appears to be a scrivener’s error in paragraph 6(a) which incorrectly recites that the former husband is responsible for making the former wife’s car payments for one (1) year.” (47)
“The parties’ dissolution of marriage is affirmed and the final judgment is remanded for the sole purpose of correcting the scrivener’s error in paragraph 6(a).” (47)
Factual background
The parties were married for six years and had no children together. The former husband was fifty-one and the former wife was thirty-four at dissolution; the wife attended college during the marriage and earned an associate's degree, with a bachelor's degree expected in December 1991. The former husband owned a State Farm Insurance Agency, and the final judgment addressed equitable distribution and the husband's responsibility for the former wife's car payments.
Procedural history
The former wife appealed the final judgment of dissolution, challenging the treatment of the alleged enhanced value of the former husband's State Farm Insurance Agency, the trial court's reference to marriage counseling, and provisions concerning payment of her automobile expenses. The appellate court rejected the substantive challenges but remanded for correction of an apparent scrivener's error in the judgment.
Remand instructions
Remand solely to correct the scrivener's error in paragraph 6(a) so that the former husband's responsibility for the former wife's car payments is stated as two years rather than one year.