2023 Cases Flashcards
2023 Cases
Balazic v. Balazic (2023)
(Agreement/Marital v. Non-Marital)
Can court rely on ED statute in interpreting agreement?
No, if the language of the agreement is clear and unambiguous.
Facts: Settlement agreement requiring parties to equally divide the portion of husband’s retirement plan acquired from the time of the marriage to the filing of the dom petition, “plus any gains or losses on that amount.”
Holding: (Agreement): Even though Court would’ve reached different result by applying Florida statutory law in determining which portion of retirement was marital vs. non-marital, the Court was required to only consider interpreting it based on terms of contract.
Brutus v. Brutus (360 So.3d 1223–FLA. L. Weekly D1030c—2023)
What is the rule used to determine Marital v. Non-marital Classification)
What are the required findings for equal and unequal distribution?
What are some must haves in a Parenting Plan?
Court requiring one party to be solely responsible for a marital liability (student or personal loans of spouse occurred during the marriage) could result in improper unequal distribution without necessary findings.
Rule for classifying marital vs. non-marital: *61.075, states the cutoff date for determining which liabilities are classified as marital or non-marital liabilities, and the cutoff is the “earliest of the date the parties entered into a valid separation agreement or the date of filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage”
(Required Findings): For both equal and unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities, 61.075 requires “specific written findings of fact as to the following:
1. A clear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests
2. An identification of marital assets, the individual evaluation of significant assets and designation of which spouse is entitled to each asset
3. identification of marital liabilities and designation of which spouse gets each liability
4. any findings necessary to advise the parties or appellate court as to how the trial court reached its distribution of assets
Holding (Parenting Plan): Parenting Plan must haves include non-school day exchanges, details for holiday schedule, definite start and stop times, school designation, responsibility for healthcare; how parties share in daily tasks related to upbringing of the children, description of method of how the parents communicate
Rivera v. Rivera (48 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1505A
Can non-marital assets be converted into marital asset, if the non-marital property is sold and proceeds obtained during the marriage?
It depends on whether or not the non-marital funds were commingled.
RULE: Non-marital assets may lose their non-martial character and come marital assets where, as here, they have been commingled with marital assets.
o Especially true with money because it is fungible and once commingled it loses its separate character
Analysis: Here, H inherited house from grandmother and it was non-marital but house was sold during marriage but there was no record evidence that the funds were commingled in any marital account. Non-marital funds did not lose non-marital character.
Distinguishing facts: pre-marital property sold during the marriage and the the proceeds were commingled into an account that was used to pay expenses incurred by the parties, transforming what was once her personal bank account into a marital asset
CUPO V. CUPO 352 So.3d 888 (2023)
(Rule on dividing military pension)
HOLDING: If Court not presented with pension’s value in dollars, court must still include the pension, expressed in percentage in the division of marital assets. Pension may be valued based on percentage of retired pay accrued during the marriage.
61.076, Fla. Stat.
All vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs are marital assets subject to equitable distribution.
If the parties married at least 10 years, one of the parties was a service member of performed at least 10 years of creditable service, and if the division of marital property includes a division of uniformed services retired or retainer pay, the final judgment shall include– A specification of the amount of retired or retainer pay to be distributed pursuant to the order, expressed in dollars or as a percentage of the disposable retired or retainer pay.
CROCKER V. CROCKER–370 So.3d 363—48 FLA. L. WEEKLY D 1431B (2023)
(Rule of division of disability benefits)
HOLDING: benefits at issue were disability benefits and thus not subject to ED because the character and purpose of the benefits was to replace income husband lost based on his disability
RULE: Generally, an employer sponsored disability pension does not constitute a marital asset subject to ED. Instead a spouse’s disability benefits are considered income, and may be considered for alimony purposes.
EXCEPTION: Only the retirement portion of the disability pension is subject to equitable distribution.
ANALYSIS: court must determine what portion of the pension represents compensation for pain and suffering, disability disfigurement (non-marital) and what portion, if any, represents retirement pay (marital)
Weisfeld analysis: when the court considered whether worker’s compensation and personal injury damages are marital– If the benefit is for future lost income, future medical expenses, then the benefit is the separate property of the disabled or injured spouse because the award is personal to the employee and distinguishable from a retirement pension
ASK: was benefit based on employment, earning capacity, rate of pay or wages or self employment income?
*was the benefit based on retirement age and minimum of years of service?
MADDOX V. MADDOX 357 So.3d 270—48 Fla. Law Weekly D441b (2023)
(Due Process of Non-Party)
HOLDING: Trial court violated due process rights of husband’s employer by entering a judgment that substantially affected employer’s interest, despite the fact the employer had not been made a party to the proceedings until after entry of final judgment, and had not otherwise been given notice that its interest would be adjudicated.
RULE: 12.230 FLA. FAM. L. R. P. –anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may, at any time, be permitted to assert a right by intervention.
* FL courts have held the rights of an induvial cannot be adjudicated in a judicial proceeding to which he or she has not been made a party and from which he has been excluded by the failure of the moving party to bring him into the action.
BLEW V. BLEW 358 So.3d 1232—48 Fla. L. Weekly D653A (2023)
HOLDING: Trial court erred by granting partition of marital home prior to dissolving parties’ marriage. Partition of property held by tenants by the entireties is not permitted prior to entry of final judgment dissolving the marriage of the owners.
Husband did not seek interim partial distribution under 61.075.
REESE V. REESE 363 So.3d 1202—48 FLA L. WEEKLY D993a (2023)
HOLDING (MARITAL VS. NON-MARITAL): cut off date for determining assets and liabilities to be classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, or the date of the filing of the petition
**party seeking to establish that a liability incurred subsequent to the date of the marriage is nonmarital has the burden to show the liability is non-marital
o A party may meet that burden by establishing that the liability was incurred after the applicable cut off date.
ANALYSIS: There was no evidence as to whether bill was incurred before or after date of dissolution petition was filed. Testimony indicated bill was incurred subsequent to date of parties’ marriage–liability was presumably marital since H didn’t prove it was non-marital
HOLDING: (VALUATION): Trial court did not err in determining value of marital home as of date of filing, where the only competent, substantial evidence presented regarding value of home was based on that date. Since the date of filing value was the only evidence presented, the court could not have chosen any other value for the home.
ANALYSIS: When a marital asset have appreciated passively since the filing date, the date of the final hearing generally should be used.
***When the marital assets have appreciated due to the work efforts of either party since the filing date, the filing date should be used.
HOLDING: TAX CONSEQUENCES: consequences of income tax laws on the distribution of marital assets and alimony is required and failure to do so is ordinarily reversible error. However, the trial court is not required to consider the tax consequences when no evidence is presented
HOLDING (ALIMONY) Trial court erred by failing to make specific findings regarding parties’ net income. To determine a party’s ability to pay, net income (after expenses), not gross must be considered.
PUKIN V. PUKIN 365 So.3d 493—48 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1203A (2023)
(MARITAL DEBT)
HOLDING: Trial court erred when it failed to identify, value, and distribute all marital liabilities, including promissory note executed during marriage and owed to husband’s father. A trial court’s failure to include all marital assets or debts in an ED plan violates sections 61.075.
**H testified re: promissory note from his father that was loan for taxes owed by the parties, loan had not been paid off. W failed to offer any testimony to rebut H’s testimony re: loan.
