Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): expert’s valuation without adequate support for that expert’s disregard of certain partnership debts requires reversal. Finally, I disagree with the majority’s command that the trial court consider only the value of the marital estate as of the time that the bankruptcy ended for purposes of determining equitable distribution. In my view, the task is a bit more complicated than that. I. ¶ 49. Generally, the valuation of a marital estate is as of a date coinciding with the dissolution of the marriage. This may be deemed the date of filing for divorce, the date of the hearing at which a divorce is granted or the date of the hearing at which property issues are determined depending upon the jurisdiction. See, e.g., Catalfumo v. Catalfumo, 704 So.2d 1095, 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(<HOLDING>); Morgan v. Ackerman, 964 S.W.2d 865, 869 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the date of filing the petition for dissolution as the valuation date for equitable distribution (B) holding that valuation should occur on the date of the trial at which property issues are determined (C) holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act (D) holding the petition date is the appropriate date to value the collateral when the debtors intend to remain in the home (E) holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due
Output (English): holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act