TIBY M. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLAVIA MARTIN, 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 reversed the trial court's imposition of a constructive trust on the husband's assets in a dissolution of an eight-month marriage, holding that a constructive trust was improper because the parties had an antenuptial agreement, the wife's funds were commingled and untraceable, and the constructive trust was neither pleaded nor proven.
A constructive trust cannot be imposed in a dissolution case where the parties executed an antenuptial agreement, the funds sought to be traced are commingled and fungible, and the constructive trust was not pleaded or proven.
[1] A constructive trust will not be imposed in a dissolution of marriage proceeding where the funds sought to be traced are commingled in a joint account prior to marriage,…
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 intelligenceThe husband and wife were married for eight months. The trial court imposed a constructive trust ordering the husband to pay the wife $12,536 and conv…
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 Tracing Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.
The husband, Tiby M. Martin, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of the parties’ eight-month marriage. We find merit only in the issue of whether the trial court properly imposed a constructive trust for the benefit of the wife, Flavia Martin. Pursuant to the final judgment, the trial court imposed the constructive trust and ordered the husband to pay the wife $12,536 and, in addition, ordered the husband to convey title to a jointly-held timeshare unit to the wife. The timeshare was valued at $3,000. We reverse the imposition of the constructive trust. There are several reasons the imposition of a constructive trust was improper. First, the parties entered into an antenup-tial agreement, and the wife’s list of assets in that agreement did not designate any funds from which a constructive trust could result. Second, the wife’s funds, which were considered by the trial court in imposing the constructive trust, were commingled in a joint account before the marriage. Money is fungible and most difficult to trace. Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Third, a constructive trust was not pleaded or proven. Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Accordingly, we reverse and quash that portion of the final judgment which ordered the husband to pay the wife $12,536 and to convey title to the timeshare unit to her. We remand this case with instructions that the trial court equitably distribute the marital assets that existed when the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- S & E Contractors, Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Carole v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)