
    James H. ADDINGTON, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary M. ADDINGTON, Appellee.
    No. BQ-105.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Feb. 24, 1988.
    On Motion for Rehearing and Clarification April 7, 1988.
    Lyman T. Fletcher, of Fletcher & Fletcher, Jacksonville, for appellant.
    James G. Roberts, Jacksonville, and Michael J. Korn of Christian, Prom, Korn, & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for appellee.
   BARFIELD, Judge.

James H. Addington, Jr. appeals the trial court’s judgment as it provides for support and use and distribution of marital assets. The awards of alimony, life insurance and use of the marital home are AFFIRMED.

The division of marital assets is REVERSED. The lakeside cottage, while built in part with the parties’ funds, was owned by the appellant’s mother. It was not a marital asset subject to distribution. There is no evidence of the value of the football tickets in the record. If the court intends to attribute some value to the tickets that value must have some record support. The value attributed to the appellant’s insurance business has no record support. While the trial court may have considered the business to have some goodwill value as argued by appellee, there is no evidentiary predicate upon which such a value could be based. On the strength of the record before this court it is only speculation as to what might have been the basis of the trial court’s valuation. The only measurable basis of business valuation was the balance sheet from which a book value might be determined. That value nowhere approximated the trial court’s valuation.

The distribution of marital assets is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

Appellant’s motion suggests this court overlooked the character of lump sum alimony as part of the division of marital assets rather than support for appellee when the court affirmed the award of alimony. The appellant’s position concerning the two types of alimony in this case is correct, and we grant the motion to clarify our opinion which is intended to affirm only the periodic alimony. The possible future award of $40,000 lump sum alimony contingent upon the possibility of a future sale of the marital home is to be reconsidered by the trial judge along with all other marital assets.

Appellee’s contention that this court remanded the case for consideration only of the insurance business and football tickets ignores the plain language of the opinion which twice states “The division [distribution] of marital asets is REVERSED.” Upon remand the parties and the trial court shall renew their efforts to fairly divide all the marital assets in light of our opinion and its clarification contained herein.  