First, we address the trial court’s inclusion of a motorcycle in its equitable distribution scheme. The husband claimed the motorcycle had been stolen, but counsel for the appellee (“the wife”) argued it should be included in the equitable distribution scheme and assigned its value at the time of filing, which counsel asserted was about $7,999. During the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the parties did not present any evidence regarding the value of the motorcycle. The trial court, apparently rejecting the testimony that the motorcycle had been stolen, included it in equitable distribution and assigned it a value of $7,999. The trial court did not err in rejecting the husband’s claim that the motorcycle was stolen. See Maurer v. State, 668 So.2d 1077, 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the court erred in assigning a
recognizing that a judge sitting as a factfinder may reject a witnesss uncontradicted testimony holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay holding jury is entitled to accept the states version of the facts and reject appellants version or reject any of the witnesses testimony