LUIS BARDINO, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA BARDINO, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court erred in dismissing the husband's claims for equitable distribution of the marital home that he had quit-claimed to the wife during the marriage, and in dissolving the lis pendens on the property. The appellate court reversed, holding that property transferred during the marriage remains a marital asset subject to equitable distribution regardless of the form of transfer.
The court held that property transferred during the marriage is a marital asset under section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes, regardless of the form of transfer or the intent behind it, and therefore may be subject to equitable distribution in a dissolution action. The court also held that the lis pendens should not have been dissolved because a fair nexus exists between the husband's legal or equitable interest in the property and the dispute embodied in the lawsuit.
[1] A marital home transferred by one spouse to the other during the marriage remains a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, even if the transfer occurred shortly…
[2] A lis pendens should not be dissolved if the proponent can establish a fair nexus between the apparent legal or equitable ownership of the property and the dispute embodi…
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“The property, which neither party disputes was marital property transferred to the wife during the marriage, was a marital asset as defined by section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1995).”
Establishes the core holding that property transferred during marriage is a marital asset regardless of form of transfer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a thirty-year marriage, the husband quit-claimed the marital home to the wife several months before filing for dissolution of marriage and reque…
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
NESBITT, Judge.
We reverse the order which dissolved a notice of lis pendens and dismissed certain counts of husband’s complaint for dissolution. After a thirty-year marriage, husband filed for dissolution of marriage and requested equitable distribution of the marital assets under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1995), including the marital home which the husband had quit-claimed to the wife several months before filing his action for dissolution. Based on the earlier transfer, the trial judge dismissed the counts of the husband’s complaint which made a claim for equitable distribution of that asset. That ruling was erroneous.
The property, which neither party disputes was marital property transferred to the wife during the marriage, was a marital asset as defined by section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Whether the husband gifted his interest in the home to the wife as the result of an informal settlement agreement, as the wife maintained, or the home was a marital asset transferred with the understanding that the proceeds from the home’s sale would be shared by the spouses, as argued by the husband, because the transfer took place during the marriage, under the instant facts, the home would be characterized as a marital asset under section 61.075(5)(a). See Holmes v. Holmes, 613 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA1993). Furthermore, the court erred in concluding the lis pendens on the property should be ordered dissolved. Acapulco Constr., Inc. v. Redavo Estates, Inc., 645 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (Lis pendens should not be dissolved if proponent can establish fair nexus between apparent legal or equitable ownership of property and dispute embodied in lawsuit.).
We treat the instant appeal of the order dissolving the lis pendens as an appeal of a non-final order. Roger Homes Corp. v. Persant Constr., Co., 637 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Additionally, while ordinarily we would not review matters collateral to the lis pendens, Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987), reinstating the dismissed paragraphs of the complaint is what establishes the claim which makes the lis pendens proper. The intertwined nature of the dismissed paragraphs and the order dissolving the lis pendens dictates we review both issues at this time.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moss v. Arca Dev., Inc., 687 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. We treat this petition for certiorari review of an order discharging a lis pendens as a non-final appeal, see Bardino v. Bardino, 670 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and reverse the order below because, whatever the merits of the petitioners’ claims to the subject realty, their action is “founded on” an “instrument,” a quit claim deed to their deceased parent, which was “duly recorded” in the…
-
Angler's Reef Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Guirm Inv. LLC, 196 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…of interlocutory orders that dissolve injunctions, and this Court has repeátedly held that this provision of the rule provides the Court with jurisdiction to review trial court orders discharging lis pendens. See, e.g., Moss, 687 So. 2d 70; Bardino, 670 So. 2d 183; Acapulco Constr., 645 So. 2d 182. Here, although ARPOA’s notice of appeal does state that it appeals all three orders, ie., the order requiring ARPOA to post a bond, the order setting the amount of the bond, and the order discharging the lis penden…1 / 2
-
Williams v. Williams (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Acapulco Constr., Inc. v. Redavo Ests., Inc., 645 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Roger Homes Corp. v. Persant Constr. Co., 637 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Holmes v. Terese L. Holmes, 613 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)