PRINT, PDF, EMAIL

At issue was whether a trial court properly valued stock shares which a former husband was directed to transfer to his former wife. The trial court’s stock valuation was not supported by competent, substantial evidence because of the following three errors. First, the court erred in determining the stock’s value before the former wife finished presenting the testimony of her expert witness. Secondly, the court erred in determining the stock’s value without hearing the former husband’s expert witness, but instead relied on the unsworn statement of the former husband’s attorney as to the husband’s evidence. Lastly, the court erred in determining the stock’s value because the court, without providing a factual explanation, appeared to have split the difference between the parties’ respective values of the stock to arrive at the stock’s value. Order was reversed to the extent the court determined the stock’s value without competent, substantial evidence of the stock’s value. Case was remanded for further proceedings.