DWYN DANIELS ROBBIE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSEPH MICHAEL ROBBIE, 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.
In a divorce case involving the Miami Dolphins, the court reversed the trial judge's determination that appreciation in a closely held family corporation was entirely non-marital property. The court held that a spouse employed full-time as general manager contributed marital labor to enhance the corporation's value, even though he was not the key decision-maker, and therefore the appreciation constitutes marital property subject to equitable distribution.
The appreciation in the Miami Sports Corporation during the marriage is marital property. A spouse employed full-time in a closely held family corporation contributes marital labor that enhances the corporation's value even without decision-making authority, and such appreciation cannot be deemed entirely non-marital. The court declined to determine what specific portion of the enhancement the wife is entitled to receive.
[1] An increase in the value of a closely held family corporation during a marriage may be considered a marital asset, even if the spouse employed by the corporation is not t…
[2] Marital labor used to enhance the value of a closely held family corporation can result in the appreciation of that corporation being considered a marital asset.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1993), should not be construed so narrowly as to preclude an interest in a closely held family corporation from being considered a marital asset, where the spouse is employed full-time in its endeavors but is not the key decision-maker.”
Establishes the court's holding that full-time employment in a family corporation, even without decision-making authority, can make appreciation in that corporation marital property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Robbie received a 9.5% share of Miami Sports Corporation (which owns the Miami Dolphins) from his father before marrying Dwyn Robbie. During t…
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 Marital Labor cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following in its place.
In this dissolution, the trial judge determined that the entire appreciation over the marriage of the corporation in which the husband was employed was non-marital and denied any equitable distribution of its appreciated value to the wife. We reverse this determination.
Michael Robbie was given a 9.5% share of the Miami Sports Corporation by his father prior to the marriage to his wife Dwyn. Miami Sports Corporation has an ownership interest in a number of entities including the Miami Dolphins. Michael’s full-time occupation during the marriage was as general manager and executive vice president of the Dolphins and as officer and director of virtually all of the Robbie family entities. During the marriage the Dolphins and thus the Sports Corporation substantially increased in value.
Joe Robbie, Sr., was the president of the Dolphins and definitely in charge of the financial management of the team and the corporation. It was clear from the testimony that he made the significant decisions regarding the franchise. Michael, his brother Tim, and Don Shula all testified that Michael did not have any authority to make decisions for the organization. Based on this testimony, the trial court determined that any appreciation in the organization did not result from and was not attributable to either spouse. Therefore, the appreciation in Michael’s share of the corporation was a non-marital asset.
Michael was held out to the world as the general manager of the Dolphins. While he may have not made the command decisions, the testimony indicates that he carried through with the details, such as the change of season ticketholders from the Orange Bowl to Joe Robbie Stadium. Certainly, his efforts contributed to the franchise and thus its overall success. Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1993), should not be construed so narrowly as to preclude an interest in a closely held family corporation from being considered a marital asset, where the spouse is employed full-time in its endeavors but is not the key decision-maker. If Michael, as general manager, contributed by carrying out the decisions made by others, then his marital labor was used to enhance the value of the corporation. See Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
While we hold that the enhancement of value in the Sports Corporation during the marriage is marital property, we make no conclusion as to what portion of the enhancement value the wife is entitled to as equitable distribution.
As to the other points on appeal, we affirm. However, given our reversal of the equitable distribution, on remand the trial court may review the other awards made in fashioning an appropriate result.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
HERSEY, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…'is whether the husband exerted the sort of “effort” required to move the appreciation value from the nonmarital category to the marital one. The details of our prior case law make the answer to that question quickly apparent. In Robbie v. Robbie, 654 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we held that the appreciation of stock owned by the general manager of the Miami Dolphins — a business enterprise run largely by the husband’s family — was a marital asset. Id. at 617, Similarly, in Pagano, we held the same with…
-
Oxley v. Oxley, 695 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…or where the asset has appreciated due to the marital efforts of a party and not simply due to passive market forces. E.g., Oldham v. Oldham, 683 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Pagano v. Pagano, 665 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Robbie v. Robbie, 654 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Pleas v. Pleas, 652 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Dunagan v. Dunagan, 664 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). But see Munro v. Munro, 630 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Heinri…
-
Robbie v. Dwyn Daniels Robbie, 726 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. This appeal arises from dissolution proceedings between the parties, which have already generated numerous appeals in this court. After this court’s partial reversal of the underlying divorce judgment, see Robbie v. Robbie, 654 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(“Robbie I ”), the case was remanded to the trial court for valuation and equitable distribution of the appreciation of one of the husband’s non-marital assets, the Miami Sports Corporation. On remand to the trial court, the wife…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)