KELLI C. MALONE, WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
PARRY A. MALONE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings on visitation, child support, and income imputation, but reversed the treatment of an engagement ring as marital property and the inclusion of non-marital credit card debt in the equitable distribution.
An engagement ring given before marriage is not a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, and non-marital credit card debt cannot be allocated as a marital liability.
[1] An engagement ring given to a spouse prior to marriage is not a marital asset subject to equitable distribution upon dissolution of marriage.
[2] Non-marital debt admitted by a party cannot be allocated as a marital liability in the equitable distribution scheme.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKelli Malone challenged a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Parry Malone, disputing the trial court's treatment of an engagement ring valued a…
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 Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kelli C. Malone, the former wife, challenges an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage on several grounds. We affirm the issues raised regarding visitation, calculation of child support, and imputation of income. However, we reverse the distribution of an engagement ring and certain credit card debt.
The trial court considered the value of the engagement ring given to the former wife prior to the marriage as a marital asset; this was error. See Rosen v. Rosen, 738 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Greenberg v. Greenberg, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Furthermore, the trial court included as a marital liability credit card debt incurred by the former husband on his Chase MasterCard which he admitted was not marital debt. Accordingly, the amended final judgment of dissolution is reversed as to the allocation in the equitable distribution scheme of these items. A corrected judgment shall be entered on remand which removes from the former wife’s list of assets the value ($8,000) of the engagement ring and which removes from the former husband’s list of liabilities his Chase MasterCard debt ($8,156); these corrections require a corresponding correction of the “equalization payment” ordered to be paid by the former wife.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BROWNING, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Katharine Randall v. Randall, 56 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ides that “[i]n a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, ... the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse’s nonmarital assets and liabilities.” The general rule is that an engagement ring is nonmarital property. See, e.g., Malone v. Malone, 929 So. 2d 541, 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Rosen v. Rosen, 738 So. 2d [*819] 474, 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So. 2d 328, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In Melvik, the court explained that “[i]t was error for the trial court to consider the wife’s prema…
Authorities Cited
- Jami Robin Greenberg v. Greenberg, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Francine Rosen v. Rosen, 738 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)