Nelson v. Nelson

Full title: JESSE J. NELSON, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. BETTY J. NELSON…

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 31, 2001

Case No. 5D99-826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 5D99-826.

Opinion filed August 31, 2001.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Kerry E. Evander, Judge.

Michael R. Riemenschneider and William H. Cantwell, II of O'Brien, Riemenschneider, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Scott Krasny of Krasny and Dettmer, Melbourne, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

SHARP, W., J.

ON MOTION TO REHEAR

We grant the motion to rehear and correct the first paragraph under section B on page 6-7 as follows:

B. Valuations of Business Assets Distributed to Former Husband; Blue Water, Excel Tel Services, Pexin Farms.

The trial court opted to use March 14, 1996, to value the parties' assets, which was after the parties had separated but before the petition for dissolution was filed. Blue Water and Excel Tel Services were valued on the Financial Statement at $330,000 and $300,000, respectively, as of March 14, 1996. The reason the trial court gave for selecting that date was two-fold. First, neither party presented substantial competent evidence as to values close to that period of time, other than a financial statement executed by Jesse on that date. Neither party offered a better solution to the date of valuation of marital assets. In view of these facts, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.

We also correct footnote 4 to read:

Excel-Tel. Services, Inc., was a company solely owned by Betty, although it does not appear that she controlled it. The trial judge erroneously listed Jesse as the owner of this asset. There were two corporations with the name "Excel Tel": Excel Tel Services and Excel Tel Data Services. Excel Tel Data Services had no value, Excel Tel Services was valued at $300,000. The testimony regarding these corporations was confusing, and although Betty was the owner of Excel Tel Services, the record is unclear as to whether Jesse, Betty or Nelson Engineering received any value for it. On remand, the trial court should revisit this issue and make factual determinations thereon.

In all other respects, we affirm the opinion as written.

PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.