KATHLEEN MASSELLE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
HOWARD B. MASSELLE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's denial of equitable distribution of substantial appreciation in property reacquired during marriage, holding that appreciation resulting from joint marital labor and mortgages paid through marital business operations must be equally divided.
Substantial appreciation in property reacquired during marriage through foreclosure and repurchase is subject to equitable distribution when the increase in value results from joint marital labor and mortgages paid through marital business operations.
[1] Appreciation in value of property reacquired during marriage through foreclosure and repurchase is subject to equitable distribution when the increase results from joint…
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“The increase in value was brought about by the joint labor of the parties and by mortgages placed on the property as partial payment of the reacquisition price and for improvements to the resort which were then paid off by the operation of the marital business on that property.”
Court's explanation of why appreciation is subject to equitable distribution
Howard and Kathleen Masselle married in 1978. After marriage, Howard reacquired two parcels of property he previously owned through foreclosure and re…
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 Premarital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
Howard and Kathleen Masselle were married in 1978. After the marriage, Howard reacquired property previously owned by him through foreclosure (one parcel) and by repurchase from a superior mortgage holder (the second parcel). The Guana Beach Resort was located on the property and operated by the parties after it was reacquired by Howard. We find no support for the trial court’s finding that the substantial appreciation in value of this asset was not subject to equitable distribution. The increase in value was brought about by the joint labor of the parties and by mortgages placed on the property as partial payment of the reacquisition price and for improvements to the resort which were then paid off by the operation of the marital business on that property. The proceeds from the sale of the property, after deducting the premarital equity regained by Howard through his foreclosure and reacquisition, and the contributions made by Howard from other premarital assets in the additions and improvements to the property, should be divided equally between the parties. The court should also divide equally the proceeds received from the payoff of the Giffen mortgage — a mortgage given clearly for a marital asset.
The court should also revisit the issues of child support and alimony.
We affirm the previous award of attorney’s fees.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.