975 So. 2d 628 - Bardowell v. Bardowell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital asset's or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based' on competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in subsection (1). The distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal.or unequal, shall include specific written findings of fact as to the following: ■ (a) Clear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests; (b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset; (c) Identification of the marital liabilities and designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability; (d) Any other findings necessary to - advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court’s rationale for .the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Buckalew v. Buckalew

2. “At trial, the wife submitted evidence of a “retirement forecast” document prepared by the FRS, which stated that, as of December 2004, the husband’s current FRS balance was worth $17,438. The document noted that the current FRS balance “is the present value of your accrued FRS benefit given current years of service.” The FRS documentation provided competent evidence that the present value of the husband’s FRS pension was approximately $17,438 as of December 2004. This is not a nominal value. While the trial coui-t would have been within its discretion to value the pension at an amount lower than $17,438 to account for the fact that the pension was not yet vested, the trial court was not free to ascribe a nominal value to the FRS pension. The trial court’s decision to ■ assign a nominal value to the FRS pension was not reasonable or equitable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coleman v. Bland