LAWRENCE W. PFLEGER, APPELLANT,
v.
CRESULA S. PFLEGER, APPELLEE
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 court held that the increase in value of a separately owned asset, due to marital labor or funds expended after reconciliation, is subject to equitable distribution.
Husband quitclaimed his interest in the marital home to his wife, but they reconciled and cohabited for eleven years. During this time, the husband 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 Separate Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lawrence and Cresula Pfleger were married in 1961. They separated briefly in 1977, but reunited after Mr. Pfleger agreed to execute a quitclaim deed relinquishing his interest in the marital home to his wife. Mr. Pfleger executed the deed and the parties cohabited until 1988, when they were divorced. Mr. Pfleger appeals from the final judgment of dissolution, which finds that the quitclaim deed is valid and that Mrs. Pfleger is the sole owner of the marital home.
Although these findings are correct, we reverse. That Mrs. Pfleger is the sole owner of the marital home does not mean Mr. Pfleger has no interest in it. During the eleven years they remained together after he executed the quitclaim deed, Mr. Pfleger made most or all of the house payments, replaced the roof, and repainted the house. When the parties were divorced, the home was valued at $57,000. It appears that the home increased in value during those eleven years.
When separately owned assets increase in value during a marriage due to the expenditure of marital labor or funds, the amount of the increase is subject to equitable distribution. Turner v. Turner, 529 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Once the expenditure of marital labor or funds has been established, increases in value attributable to marital labor, funds, inflation, and market conditions will all apply. Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
In this case, the home began as a marital asset but was converted into separately-owned property by the execution of the quitclaim deed. After that time, the parties reconciled and Mr. Pfleger spent marital funds and labor on the house. We hold that he is entitled to equitable distribution of the increase in the home’s value that is attributable to his efforts.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…husband worked in the businesses, particularly the trucking company, during the marriage. Marital appreciation of separately-owned assets is subject to equitable distribution if either spouse expended marital labor on that asset. Pfleger v. Pfleger, 558 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Sanders v. Sanders, 547 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Here the trial court erroneously concluded that the wife would have to contribute toward the enhancement of the asset for the appreciation to constitute marital pr…
-
Doig v. Richelle Doig, 787 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…a marital asset subject to distribution.... ” We agree with this finding and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s determination that the Wife was entitled to be awarded one-half the enhancement value of the marital residence. See Pfleger v. Pfleger, 558 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We reject, however, the trial court’s valuation of the enhancement. The trial court found that the home had a stipulated fair market value of $110,000. Based on the cost of repairs ($41,500) and the purchase price ($94,400), the…
-
Straley v. Frank, 585 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…n value of the husband’s assets because the court said at least some, and perhaps a substantial portion, was attributable to marital funds and work efforts. That cause was remanded to make appropriate apportionment. Similarly, in Pfleger v. Pfleger, 558 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the court held that a husband could claim as a marital asset the increased value in the wife’s home owned prior to marriage, to the extent the increase in the home’s value was “attributable to his efforts.”9 Apportioning the per…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Russell v. State, 529 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)