MILLARD R. EVERHART, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN S. EVERHART, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's award of a one-third interest in Key Packaging Company to the wife based on special equity, but reversed the grant of an equitable lien on the shares as duplicative and erroneous.
A wife's special equity in a closely-held business entitles her to a one-third interest in shares held and subsequently acquired under specified agreements, but an equitable lien on those same shares is improper as duplicative.
[1] A special equity in a closely-held business may be satisfied by awarding a spouse a fractional interest in shares held and subsequently acquired under specified agreement…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court found that the wife had a special equity in Key Packaging Company, Inc. and awarded her a one-third inte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
On this appeal by respondent/husband from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and other relief we find one point to have merit.
The trial court found that petitioner/wife had a special equity in Key Packaging Company, Inc. and awarded her a one-third interest in the business. Appellant was directed to transfer to appellee one-third of all the shares in Key Packaging held by him at that time and one-third of any shares he might acquire as a result of certain agreements referred to as the Wing Agreements which included an employment contract and a stock redemption plan. It seems to us that the trial judge’s intent by this somewhat unusual arrangement was to insure that appellee would receive one-third of any stock in Key Packaging obtained by appel lant which was the subject of the Wing Agreements. Under the special circumstances of this case the trial court’s order was correct in this regard.
The trial court erred, however, in additionally granting an equitable lien on one-third of the shares currently owned or subsequently acquired by appellant. Accordingly, the following portion of the final judgment is stricken: “The Petitioner is hereby granted an equitable lien on all such interests to the extent of her one-third (V3) undivided interest therein.”
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
GRIMES, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.