KATHRYN ANGIE STOUGH, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STEPHEN MICHAEL STOUGH, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 a dissolution of marriage case, the husband cross-appeals the trial court's allocation of a $9,800 debt to the wife's father as a marital liability. The appellate court affirms, holding that the trial court properly exercised equitable distribution authority under Florida law to allocate the debt between the spouses, rather than creating a final judgment against the non-party father.
The trial court properly allocated the debt as a marital liability under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, determining equitably that the husband should bear responsibility for the debt between the spouses. The dissolution judgment does not create a final judgment in favor of the non-party father but rather distributes the marital debt between the former spouses.
[1] A trial court may equitably distribute a marital liability between spouses in a dissolution of marriage action, even if the debt is owed to a non-party.
[2] A trial court's determination of responsibility for a marital debt between spouses in a dissolution of marriage action is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial court did not have jurisdiction to award damages in favor of a non party”
The husband's primary argument on cross-appeal regarding the $9,800 allocation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring the marriage, the wife's father loaned the parties $9,800 to purchase a boat. The husband testified he sold the boat for $1,000, but the trial …
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 Liabilities cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
The husband cross-appeals1 one aspect of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In the final judgment, the trial court found that the husband “got the benefit of the boat purchased by the Wife’s father for $9800.00.” Although the husband “testified he sold the boat for $1000.00,” the trial court did “not find this testimony credible.” The court ruled that the husband would “be responsible for the $9800.00 loan from the Wife’s father used to purchase the parties’ boat.”
On appeal, the husband argues that the “trial judge erred by awarding $9,800.00 in the [fjinal judgment in favor of a non party against the Husband in a dissolution of marriage action.” The husband reasons that the “trial court did not have jurisdiction to award damages in favor of a non party,” since the father was not joined as a party.
Our reading of the dissolution judgment is that the trial judge equitably distributed the debt to the wife’s father as a marital liability under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2005). This means that the court determined that between the husband and the wife, the husband should be responsible for the debt. This was not an abuse of discretion in light of the evidence presented at trial.
The dissolution judgment is not a final judgment in favor of the wife’s father for the underlying debt which the father is entitled to enforce under Chapter 56 or Chapter 77, Florida Statutes (2005).
Affirmed.
WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . The wife appealed and the husband cross-appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The wife subsequently filed a motion for dismissal of her appeal which was formalized by a July 17, 2006 order of this court; the husband's cross-appeal remained.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Juliano v. August B. Juliano, 991 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…y divided between the parties. Pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2007), a trial court has the authority to identify all marital liabilities and designate which spouse shall be responsible for each liability. See, e.g., Stough v. Stough, 947 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (former husband found to be responsible for loan from the former wife’s father that was used to purchase the couple’s boat). However, a trial court cannot, in a dissolution proceeding, “adjudicate property rights of a non-pa…