BARRY EDWIN TWIGG
v.
AMANDA JEAN TWIGG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a portion of a divorce judgment, finding that a vintage car gifted to the husband before the marriage was a nonmarital asset and should not have been subject to equitable distribution. The court also corrected the valuation of the car, which had been stipulated by the parties.
Yes, the trial court erred in classifying the pre-marital gift as a marital asset because there was no evidence of marital funds enhancing its value. Yes, the trial court erred in valuing the car at $3,000 when the parties had stipulated its value at $2,500.
[1] A vehicle gifted to a spouse prior to marriage constitutes a nonmarital asset not subject to equitable distribution where no evidence establishes that marital funds were…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the trial court erred in classifying the former husband's 1963 Buick LaSabre as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution and further erred in valuing the Buick at $3,000, we reverse the final judgment of dissolution in part.”
Establishes the court's decision to reverse the judgment in part due to errors in asset classification and valuation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed a final judgment dissolving his marriage. A 1963 Buick LaSabre, gifted to the husband before the marriage, was classified as a ma…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
BLACK, Judge. Barry Twigg, the former husband, appeals from the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Amanda Twigg, the former wife. Because the trial court erred in classifying the former husband's
1963 Buick LaSabre as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution and further erred in valuing the Buick at $3,000, we reverse the final judgment of dissolution in part. It is undisputed that the Buick had been gifted to the former husband prior to his marriage to the former wife. See § 61.075(6)(b)1, 2, Fla. Stat. (2018) (stating that nonmarital assets include "[a]ssets acquired . . . by either party prior to the marriage" and "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift"). The Buick was being stored on the property of the former wife's brother so that he could perform repairs to the vehicle.
However, the brother did not perform any repairs to the vehicle, and there was otherwise no evidence presented establishing that marital funds had been expended on the vehicle, which had not appreciated in value during the marriage. As such, the trial court erred in classifying the Buick as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. See Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So. 3d 357, 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that the trial court erred in classifying the husband's 1940 Pontiac, which had been gifted to him prior to his marriage to the wife, as a marital asset because no evidence was presented establishing that the value of the Pontiac had been enhanced during the marriage through the use of marital funds); cf. Doerr v. Doerr, 751 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in classifying the 1965 Chevrolet Corvette purchased by the husband prior to marriage as a marital asset because the marital funds used to register and insure the vehicle had not enhanced its value).
Since the Buick was being stored on the property of the former wife's brother and the former husband was unable to access it, the former husband requested that the former wife take ownership of the Buick and that the trial court "credit" him in the amount of its full value for purposes of the equitable distribution; prior to the final hearing the parties had agreed that the Buick was worth $2,500. In the final judgment, the trial court directed the former husband to sign the title to the Buick over to the former wife but determined its value to be $3,000 and distributed that amount equally between the parties. Because the parties stipulated that the Buick was worth $2,500, as conceded by the former husband on appeal, the trial court erred in valuing the Buick at $3,000.1 LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.1 The trial court may have arrived at the $3,000 figure because the former husband misstated the stipulated value of the Buick during the final hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Doerr v. Doerr, 751 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)