VICTOR PATMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
BARBARA PATMAN, 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.
In this marriage dissolution appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's valuation of marital assets as of the petition filing date but reversed a $6,000 calculation error in the equitable distribution award. The court also remanded issues of child custody and support for resolution by the trial court pursuant to its reservation of jurisdiction.
The court affirmed the valuation of marital assets as of the petition filing date. The court reversed the equitable distribution award to correct a $6,000 calculation error, requiring the former wife to pay $79,148 rather than $73,148. The court remanded child custody and support issues to the trial court for resolution in the first instance.
“The former wife concedes that there is a calculation error of $6000 in the equitable distribution award. The amended judgment must be corrected to say that the former wife must pay the former husband $79,148 rather than, as the judgment now reads, $73,148.”
Establishes the specific calculation error that necessitated reversal and correction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVictor and Barbara Patman were parties to a dissolution of marriage. The trial court entered an amended final judgment addressing equitable distributi…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The former wife concedes that there is a calculation error of $6000 in the equitable distribution award. The amended judgment must be corrected to say that the former wife must pay the former husband $79,148 rather than, as the judgment now reads, $73,148.
The former husband maintains that the trial court should have valued the marital home as of the date of trial rather than the date the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed. We reject that argument on authority of Norwood v. Anapol-Norwood, 931 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
For procedural reasons which need not be set forth here, the amended judgment reserved jurisdiction to resolve the issues of child custody and support in a future order. The parties’ respective positions on those issues should be presented to the trial court in the first instance pursuant to the reservation of jurisdiction. Because the trial court has not yet entered a final order on child custody and support, we reject the former husband’s claim that we should reach those issues at this time. We express no view on the merits of the parties’ respective positions.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.