BRADLEY J. WOELLMER, APPELLANT,
v.
THERESA E. WOELLMER, 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 Florida family law case, the appellate court affirmed a trial court's dissolution judgment in most respects, but reversed and remanded portions concerning the valuation and distribution of marital property sold at a yard sale, and clarified the amount of credit owed to the wife for post-separation home repairs.
The court affirmed the imputation of income and the credit for home repairs (reduced to $24,415, the actual amount testified to have been expended). The court reversed the portions concerning the yard sale property because the final judgment was internally inconsistent—it both awarded the husband $846.50 as his share of yard sale proceeds and separately awarded him the tractor and generator at $2,500 in valuation.
[1] A trial court may impute income to a party if record evidence supports a finding that the income was earned on a recurrent or steady basis during the marriage.
[2] A trial court has discretion to award a spouse a credit for post-separation expenditures made to maintain and repair the marital home.
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“Reimbursement or credit for a party's payment of marital property-related expenses during separation is a matter of judicial discretion in light of all relevant circumstances.”
Establishes the legal standard allowing trial courts discretion to award credit for post-separation expenditures on 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 intelligenceThe husband and wife were dissolving their marriage. The marital home, their most valuable asset, suffered hurricane damage that the wife repaired usi…
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 Imputation Of Income cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment for dissolution in all respects except for two.
We affirm the trial court’s imputation of income to the husband because record evidence supported the court’s finding that the husband’s income from a second job “had been earned on a recurrent or steady basis” during the marriage. Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
The trial court was within its discretion to award the wife a credit for the post-separation monies she spent to maintain and repair the marital home. When one spouse uses non-marital monies to “maintain the marital home[,]” the trial court has discretion to credit the paying spouse for the amount expended when “fashioning an equitable distribution in light of all relevant circumstances!.]” Grieco v. Grieco, 917 So. 2d 1052, 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Stock v. Stock, 693 So. 2d 1080, 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993))). “Reimbursement or credit for a party’s payment of marital property-related expenses during separation is a matter of judicial discretion in light of all relevant circumstances.” Stock, 693 So. 2d at 1086 (citing Knecht, 629 So. 2d at 887).
The trial court recognized that the marital home was the parties’ most valuable asset, which would have to be sold as part of the equitable distribution. Repairs to the home were necessary to generate a higher sales price, which would be to the benefit of both parties. The trial court believed the wife’s testimony that she borrowed $27,000 and expended $24,415 to repair the marital home’s hurricane damage. Photographs admitted into evidence corroborated the wife’s claim that substantial hurricane damage to the home occurred and that she made necessary repairs. It was reasonable for the trial court to award the wife a credit for the monies expended. On remand, the amount of the credit shall be reduced to $24,415, which the wife testified she expended on hurricane repairs.
Concerning marital property that the wife sold at a post-dissolution yard sale, the final judgment is inconsistent. The wife testified that she sold a tractor and a generator at the yard sale. Relying on the testimony of the wife, the court found that the wife received $1,693.00 from the yard sale, and awarded the husband $846.50. However, in the equitable distribution reflected in Exhibit C to the final judgment, the court awarded the tractor and generator to the husband, valuing those items at $2,500. We reverse these aspects of the final judgment and remand to the trial court for clarification. See Holmes v. Holmes, 676 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…y and its debt entirely to* the husband. This aspect of the judgment is internally inconsistent. A dissolution judgment that is internally inconsistent should be reversed and remanded for correction or clarification. See, e.g., Woellmer v. Woellmer, 935 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). On remand, the trial court should utilize an equitable distribution schedule that reflects the court’s ruling that the parties would equally split the proceeds of the sale of the North Carolina property. C. BOA Accounts A…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Stock v. Stock, 693 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Lane Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Grieco v. Grieco, 917 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Santosh Holmes v. Holmes, 676 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)