Case Name: Joseph COLLIGAN, Appellant, v. Norma COLLIGAN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-04-12
Citations: 759 So. 2d 688
Docket Number: No. 3D99-1006
Parties: Joseph COLLIGAN, Appellant, v. Norma COLLIGAN, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 759
Pages: 688–690

Head Matter:
Joseph COLLIGAN, Appellant, v. Norma COLLIGAN, Appellee.
No. 3D99-1006.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 12, 2000.
Opinion Granting Rehearing May 17, 2000.
Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for appellant.
Roberta Fox, and Douglas H. Stein, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In the final judgment on appeal, the court valued the assets awarded to the former husband at $592,904 and the assets awarded the wife at $194,030. The former husband was ordered to pay a total additional amount of $398,874 (the full difference between what he was awarded and what the wife was awarded) in order to accomplish equitable distribution. The judge specified that this was not intended as alimony. We conclude that the trial judge simply made a mathematical error by not first dividing the sum in half before awarding it to the wife. This is not an uncommon mistake. See Blythe v. Blythe, 592 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In Blythe, after dividing the assets, the husband received $307,000.00, while the wife was awarded $142,000.00. The court stated,
In an attempt to equalize the distribution of assets in light of this award, the trial court awarded the wife lump sum alimony of $150,000.00. However, the trial court did not deduct this $150,000.00 from the husband's total assets. Thus, the distribution resulted in the husband receiving twenty-eight percent (28%) of the net marital assets, while the wife received seventy-two percent (72%) of the net marital assets. The trial court did not justify this unequal treatment of the parties, nor is such a justification apparent from the record. It appears that this error may have been inadvertent.
Id. at 354-55.
We find that this is what occurred in the instant case and, therefore, reverse and remand for recalculation.
Upon remand, the trial court is free to reevaluate its prior ruling on alimony in light of the new distribution of assets.
Reversed and remanded.