FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, APPELLANT,

v.

FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (20 total)

• Adkins v. Adkins, 650 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
  …f the enhanced value was exempt from distribution [as a marital asset] because ‘unrelated to either party’s management, oversight, or other contribution, but instead due solely to purely passive appreciation of the original asset.’ ” Young v. Young, 606 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also England v. England, 626 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (quoting from Sanders, 547 So. 2d at 1016).1 In the instant case, it will therefore be the husband’s burden on remand to show what part, if any, of the m…
• Stevens v. Stevens, 651 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
  …ble distribution of marital assets should take into account the appreciated value of a non-marital asset caused by the expenditure of marital funds or labor, including the parties’ management, oversight, or contribution to principal, Young v. Young, 606 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Massis v. Massis, 551 So. 2d 587, 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), as well as an appropriate portion of any appreciation of a non-marital asset caused by the effects of inflation and market conditions, where “some portion of the c…
• O'Neill v. Marylee O'Neill, 868 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
  …7,111.25 [*5] should be apportioned between the increase due to marital labor and the increase due to time and market conditions, with the latter being designated a nonmar-ital asset that is not subject to equitable distribution. See Young v. Young, 606 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Under the apportionment approach exemplified by Young, the utilization of marital labor would not necessarily serve to render any and all increases in value on the nonmarital portion of the account a marital asset. In such an a…

Authorities Cited

• Wait v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979)