Below are summaries of recent decisions from Florida's appellate courts on Florida divorce and family law issues. Clicking on the case name allows you to view the appellate opinion described in the analysis below. These summaries are courtesy of Bruce Law Firm, P.A., a law firm limited to representation of clients in the mediation, litigation and appeals of Florida marital and family law matters. The firm also created and maintains the family law focused appellate resources website DivorceCourtAppeals.com.
Case: Niekamp v. Niekamp
Court: Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: John S. Carlin.
Attorneys: Sam R. Assini, Matthew P. Irwin, Luis E. Insignares.
Issues: Equitable Distribution, Time-sharing, Spousal Support, Child Support, Imputing Income, Attorney’s Fees.
Holding: Parental Responsibility
Final judgment that provides sole parental responsibility to one party and denies contact to the other must set out for the parent who losing contact what must be done to reconnect with the children. An order that does not do so is deficient as it fails to advise the parent what is expected and prevents a successor judge from monitoring the parent's progress.
Marital Assets
When an asset is acquired during the marriage, it is presumed to be marital unless specifically established otherwise. In considering a business as a marital asset, enterprise goodwill is a distributable marital asset and personal goodwill is non-marital. When a trial court makes an equitable distribution award of a business, characterized as a marital asset, a value must be assigned to the asset.
Alimony
A twenty-two-year marriage is presumed to be long-term. This places a presumption in favor of alimony when warranted by one party's need and the other party's ability to pay. In determining an alimony award, a trial court shall consider the parties' respective physical and emotional conditions and employability.
Dissipation of Assets
When a spouse depletes marital assets during the pendency of dissolution proceedings to pay for support, living expenses and litigation expenses, it is error to include the assets in the equitable distribution scheme unless a there is a specific finding of intentional misconduct. Such a finding must be based on evidence showing that the marital funds were used for one party's own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.
In this case, the trial court erred in that:
a. The final judgment failed to prescribe any schedule or benchmarks for re-establishing the Former Husband’s parenting of the children.
b. It classified the Former Wife’s business as a non-marital asset, which although it depended heavily on her personal expertise and goodwill had tangible assets (bank accounts, instructional books and enterprise goodwill).
c. It distributed a non-existent asset to the Former Husband (being money that he withdrew from retirement accounts spent on attorney's fees).
d. It determined the Former Husband was voluntarily unemployed when there was evidence showing he was unemployed for mental health reasons.
e. It imputed income to him in relation to child support and in its determination regarding payment of attorney’s fees.
The appeals court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Case: Kyriacou v. Kyriacou
Court: Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: John S. Carlin.
Attorneys: Matthew S. Toll, Stephen N. McGuire, II, Robert B. Burandt.
Issues: Equitable Distribution.
Holding: Florida Statutes prescribe terms for the distribution of marital assets. The presumption is the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification otherwise based on the statutorily enumerated factors including the economic circumstances of the parties and any other equitable considerations. Wage earning ability is one such factor although disparate earning capacity, without more, cannot be the sole basis for unequal distribution. In this case, the trial court erred when it made an unequal equitable distribution award when the record contained no indication that it considered the statutory factors listed in doing so. Specifically, it focused on the parties’ earning ability and little else. The appeals court reversed as to equitable distribution and the valuation of certain marital assets.
Case: Hooker v. Hooker
Court: Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Gregory M. Keyser.
Attorneys: Jane Kreusler-Walsh, Rebecca Mercier Vargas, Stephanie L. Serafin, Melinda P. Gamot, Susan G. Chopin.
Issues: Equitable Distribution.
Holding: Florida Statutes allow for unequal distribution of an asset when a trial court finds it is justified based on a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors including, among other things, the contributions of each spouse to the marriage; each spouse’s economic circumstances; desirability of retaining an asset; the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition and enhancement of an asset; and any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.
The statutes also require any distribution of marital assets to be supported by factual findings in the judgment based on competent substantial evidence in the record with reference to these statutory factors.
The fact that an asset is determined to be an interspousal gift and then characterized as a marital asset does not mandate that the asset be split equally if an unequal split is will create equity and justice between the parties. An interspousal gift is established by showing donative intent; delivery or possession of the gift; and surrender of dominion and control of the gift. The burden is on the party seeking to prove an interest in the property to show it was an interspousal gift on a preponderance of credible evidence. An appeals court reviews the determinations of a trial court in regards to a dissolution judgment for an abuse of discretion, and the review of the legal conclusions is de novo. When reversible error occurs with regard to valuation or distribution, the entire distribution scheme must be reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to ensure both parties receive equity and justice.
In this case, the trial court was correct in determining one property was gifted to the Former Wife. It erred, however, in determining the other property was an interspousal gift when the evidence did not show a clear and unmistakable intention on the part of the Former Husband to gift it.
With regard to the erroneous determination, there was no testimony that the Former Husband expressly stated or affirmatively acknowledged that the Former Wife had an interest in the property. The evidence only showed that the Former Wife believed that she had an interest because the family home and family business were situated on it. Specifically, the trial court erred in relying on evidence that:
a. The Former Husband did not convey to the Former Wife that she did not have an interest in the properties;
b. He did not contradict her belief that it was a gift; and
c. She had made significant contributions to the property.
The trial court did not properly consider evidence that showed that the Former Wife’s name was kept off the title and the original mortgage for the property and off the corporation created by the Former Husband related to the property (formed solely in his name). The fact that he subsequently included the Former Wife’s name in the final sale of the property did not evidence donative intent. It simply showed the Former Husband ensuring the buyer of unburdened title.
As for the property that was gifted, the evidence provided sufficient donative intent to uphold the trial court’s determination. The Former Husband’s actions showed clear and unmistakable intent as the property was where the Former Wife desired to live; he told her the home was for both of them; they both contributed to furnishing the home; he provided her with keys to it; and she had unfettered access.
The appeals court reversed the amended final judgment as to the trial court’s determination that the Former Husband gifted an interest in the one property to the Former Wife and remanded for a recalculation of the entire equitable distribution.
About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and Bruce Law Firm, P.A.
The Bruce Law Firm, P.A. is limited to the resolution of marital and family la w matters in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. The firm handles divorce litigation in South Florida and accepts referrals for appellate representation in all of Florida’s appellate courts. The firm pays referral fees in accordance with Florida Bar Rules for appellate matters, which are handled primarily on a fixed fee basis with a limited money back promise if the brief is not filed within 45 days of the firm receiving the transcript and record on appeal.