Vick v.
Vick,
675 So. 2d
714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
The Orange
County Circuit Court held that the stock in the husband’s business was a
non-marital asset and the wife was not entitled to any portion of its
value in a dissolution of marriage judgment. The court made some
additional rulings that led to the husband appealing this judgment and
the wife cross-appealing.
Ms.
Lippincott represented the wife on appeal. The appellate court ruled
that any enhancement to the value of the business during the marriage
was a marital asset that must be equitably distributed. The court also
ruled that: 1) the trial court’s award of rehabilitative alimony was
proper; 2) the findings regarding the imputation of income for both
parties were insufficient; 3) a separate hearing was required to
determine attorney fees pursuant to the parties’ agreement; 4) the
amount of the payments required of the husband did not abuse the trial
court’s discretion; and 5) transfer of the dependency exemption to the
husband should have been taken into account when calculating income.
