BRIAN J. BOLLACI, APPELLANT,
v.
NAOMI C. NIEPORTE-BOLLACI, 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.
Brian Bollaci appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court's order requiring equal sharing of proceeds from his pending personal injury claim. The appellate court affirms the judgment on all issues except the equitable distribution of personal injury proceeds, which it reverses and remands because the trial court failed to analyze the elements of damages to determine what portion, if any, constitutes marital property.
The court reversed the equitable distribution order regarding the personal injury claim proceeds. The trial court erred in treating the proceeds as marital assets to be equally distributed without analyzing the elements of damages to determine which portions, if any, constitute marital property versus separate property.
[1] Proceeds from a personal injury claim are not automatically considered marital property subject to equitable distribution.
[2] A trial court must use an analytical approach to determine the marital nature of personal injury award proceeds, focusing on the elements of damages.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“in determining whether a worker's compensation award is marital property, the trial court should use an analytical, rather than a mechanistic or unitary, approach. The court should consider the purpose of the award and focus on the award's 'elements of damages.'”
Establishes the proper legal standard for determining what portions of personal injury awards constitute 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 intelligenceSeveral months after the former wife filed for dissolution of marriage, appellant was involved in an automobile accident on May 20, 2002. During the d…
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 Elements Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Brian Bollad appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm on all issues except the one challenging the trial court’s requirement that appellant and his former wife share equally in any proceeds that appellant might receive in the future from his pending personal injury claim.
A few months after the former wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, appellant was involved in an automobile accident. During the dissolution of marriage trial, neither party presented any evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the accident, the nature and extent of any injuries sustained by appellant, the filing of a personal injury lawsuit, or any settlement negotiations. However, in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court ordered as follows:
The parties shall equally share in any proceeds receivefd] from Husband’s claim in connection with Husband’s automobile accident on May 20, 2002. Husband shall immediately provide to Wife any settlement documents and judgments in connection with said case.
We agree with appellant that the court erred in treating the proceeds of his personal injury claim as marital assets and equally distributing them. In Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 545 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1989), the supreme court held that in determining whether a worker’s compensation award is marital property, the trial court should use an analytical, rather than a mechanistic or unitary, approach. The court should consider the purpose of the award and focus on the award’s “elements of damages.” Id. at 1343. Only that portion of damages paid to the injured spouse as compensation for past lost wages and loss of earning capacity is to be considered marital property. Id. at 1345. Damages for future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses are the separate property of the injured spouse, although they may be considered in fashioning alimony and support awards. Id.; see also White v. White, 820 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing Weisfeld and holding that future lump sum payments to husband pursuant to settlement of his workers’ compensation case were not marital assets).
Here, because neither side presented evidence from which the court could determine whether the proceeds from appellant’s personal injury claim are subject to equitable distribution, we reverse that portion of the equitable distribution relating to appellant’s personal injury claim and remand with directions to vacate it.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibbons v. Gibbons, 10 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…itute or replacement for the loss of future earnings. Compensation payable for future lost earnings is the separate property of the injured or disabled spouse. See White v. White, 705 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Bollaci v. Nieporte-Bollaci, 863 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Thus, to the extent that benefits payable under a private disability policy represent a substitute for future lost income, such benefits are the separate property of the disabled spouse. Accordingly, such disability benefit…
Authorities Cited
- Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 545 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1989)
- Cruchley v. The Funding Grp., Inc., 820 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)