SUZANNE GUELPA, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDALL GUELPA, 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 this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decisions on child support and custody but reversed and remanded the distribution and evaluation of certain marital assets and liabilities due to errors in determining the cut-off date for identifying marital property and in valuing the Settlers Colony property.
The trial court erred by failing to identify August 22, 2001 (the petition filing date) as the cut-off date and by including liabilities incurred after that date in the marital distribution. The court also erred in crediting the wife with a $75,000 asset for the Settlers Colony property without acknowledging the substantial mortgage and the sister's equal ownership interest.
[1] Florida law requires the cut-off date for determining marital assets and liabilities to be the earliest of the date parties enter into a valid separation agreement, anoth…
[2] A trial court has discretion to value marital assets as of different dates, but not discretion to determine which assets and liabilities are marital.
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“the cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities "is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage."”
Establishes the statutory framework for determining when assets and liabilities become marital property subject to equitable distribution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuzanne and Randall Guelpa were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court entered a final judgment distributing marital assets …
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Suzanne Guelpa, questions several matters adjudicated in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Although we affirm without comment appellant’s points concerning child support and custody, the points involving distribution and evaluation of certain marital assets and liabilities must be reversed and remanded.
Although the final judgment purports to distribute marital assets and liabilities, it neglects to determine a cut-off date for determining such assets and liabilities. Florida law requires that the cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities “is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage.” § 61.075(6), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Leeds v. Adamse, 832 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (characterizing the statutes as a “bright line that was crossed by the filing of the petition for dissolution,” and finding that debt incurred by husband four days after wife filed petition for dissolution was not a marital liability subject to equitable distribution); Martin v. Martin, 816 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (concluding that statute does not allow flexibility in the identification of a marital asset); Caruso v. Caruso, 814 So. 2d 498, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[Discretion does not extend to permit the court to determine assets acquired after the filing of the petition to be marital assets.”); Langevin v. Langevin, 698 So. 2d 601, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding where a trial court had purported to equitably distribute stock option plan shares acquired between the date of filing the petition and the date of the final judgment).
The same statute, section 61.075(6), allows the trial court discretion to value assets as of different dates, but does not allow such discretion with regard to determining assets and liabilities. Because the record here does not reveal a separation agreement, the determination date for assets and liabilities is the date the petition was filed, August 22, 2001.
The trial court erred here by including on the husband’s side of the distribution, numerous liabilities incurred after the date of the filing of the petition. These liabilities include portions of the 2001 taxes, the 2002 taxes, and credit card balances, other than the CITI Platinum card listed on the original financial affidavit. By allowing the husband to assume these additional liabilities on his side of the balance sheet, the distribution is skewed to make it appear that the wife has received far more than the husband. Such was error and must be addressed on remand.
The trial court also erred in its treatment of the asset known as the Settlers Colony property. Contrary to the wife’s argument, the record does support a valuation of that property in the amount of $75,000. The trial court erred, however, by failing to acknowledge a substantial mortgage on the property and also by failing to acknowledge that the property is equally owned by the former wife’s sister, not a party to this action. Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment that credits the wife with a $75,000 asset in the form of the Settlers Colony is erroneous and should be revisited on remand.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ERVIN, BOOTH, and KAHN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Finney v. Finney, 995 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…. 1st DCA 2007). A trial court has the discretion to value assets as of different dates. See § 61.075(6), Fla. Stat. (2006). A trial court is not, however, afforded the same discretion in regards to determining marital assets. See Guelpa v. Guelpa, 885 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Langevin v. Langevin, 698 So. 2d 601, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The date for determining marital assets is the earliest date the parties entered into a valid separation agree [*581] ment or the date the petition was filed. S…
-
Roth v. Roth, 312 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…o be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, . . . or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage."); see also Guelpa v. Guelpa, 885 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("The trial court erred here by including on the husband's side of the distribution, numerous liabilities incurred after the date of the filing of the petition."). Alimony Because the parties have been married for more than…
-
Hardee v. Hardee, 929 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…abilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement ..., or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage.”); Guelpa v. Guelpa, 885 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“[S]ection 61.075(6), allows the trial court discretion to value assets as of different dates, but does not allow such discretion with regard to determining assets and liabilities .... The trial court erred here by includin…
Authorities Cited
- Caruso v. Caruso, 814 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Langevin v. Langevin, 698 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Leeds v. Adamse, 832 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Martin v. Earnest E. Martin, 816 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)