Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Taylor v Taylor Made Plastics Divorce

Taylor v Taylor Made Plastics Divorce

Ratings: (0)|Views: 199|Likes:
Published by propertyintangible
Divorce decree
Divorce decree

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: propertyintangible on May 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
RECORDED iN OFFiCIAL RECORDS
INSTRUMENT #2011028713
PG
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAf1
M
HING
IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY FLOR.W4RK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURTSARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN
RE; THE
MARRIAGE OF
CIVIL COURTS
Receipt # 136785
James R. Taylor,
Doc Stamp.Mort: $0.00Doe Stamp.Oeed: $0.00
intang. Tax:
PetitionertHusband,
J
CASE NO. 2006-DR-O9
and
Mary Louisa Taylor,Respondent/Vife..FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
This cause came before the Court for Final Hearing, the Court having heard testimony andreceived evidence, makes the
following findings of facts:
=
rn
BACKGROUND FACTS:
CD
I
he Husband, James
B.
Taylor, and the Wife, Mary Louisa Taylor, were ma6a CmFebroary
.
14,1987.
r, ....4
C...)
1
2.
here were two children born of this marriage, whom have attained the age of majority and
are
emancipated.
3.
The parties separated in November 2005.
4.
The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was filed on July 26, 2006.
5.
Both parties were residents of the State of Florida for the six months preceding the filing ofthe Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.
6.
Venue is proper in Sarasota County, Florida.
7.
Both parties are mentally
competent.
1
!ase 8:12-cv-00746-EAK-AEP Document 24-1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID 175
 
8.
Neither party is a member of the Armed Forces,
9.
That the marriage is irretrievably broken and the Court has personal jurisdiction over the
parties and subject matter of this proceeding.
10.
The Court received and considered the exhibits of both parties which were introduced intoevidence.
ii.
he Husband was Sixty-Seven years of age at the time of the Final Hearing. There is no
dispute that the Husband was the primary source of financial support for the parties
throughout the marriage. The Husband was employed during the course of the marriage
except
during
the year 19924993 when he sustained a physical injury to his back. At
present, the Husband's sole source of income is Social Security. The Court further finds that
the Husband is limited in his potential to find suitable employment to help maintain the
lifestyle enjoyed by the parties throughout the marriage due to his age and physical
infirmities.
12.
he Wife is fifty-one years of age and has been employed outside the home during the course
of the marriage. She left employment after separation to pursue further education. At the
present time she is a full time student working on a paralegal degree. The Wife resides with
her mother in Sarasota, florida.
2
!ase 8:12-cv-00746-EAK-AEP Document 24-1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID 176
 
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
13.
ssets:
A)
The Husband lives in a home located in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Husband
initially received the home as a gift from his parents. The Court beard considerabletestimony on whether the home should be classified as a marital asset. At this time,the Court finds that it is too late to find that the home has any marital characteristics.The home has changed title several times throughout the course of the separation.
Notably, the home was the subject of Probate Proceedings in which a Court found
that all right, title and interest vested in a third party. That third party then gifted thehome back to the Husband.
B)
The Wife argues that the home should be considered a marital asset because the
Husband received the home during the course of the marriage and that she
contributed to the current value. As mentioned above this argument must fail
because procedurally speaking, the time has passed to object to various transactions.
C)
The Court fmds that the primary assets of the marriage are certain patents. They
include United States patent 5,224,514/July 6, 1993, United States patent
5,316,0451
May 31, 1994 and United States patent 806,566/September
15,
1998, The Court
further finds there is basis for an unequal award of equitable disfribution of these
D)
The parties agree that the patents should be immediately listed for available
production. However, the parties cannot come to an agreement on how to facilitatethe process. Since the parties are unable to agree, the Court appoints Special Master
3
!ase 8:12-cv-00746-EAK-AEP Document 24-1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID 177

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->