LEDA MONTICELLO, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH MONTICELLO, 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.
The court reversed the trial judge's exclusion of evidence regarding the husband's dissipation of marital assets occurring more than two years before the dissolution petition was filed, holding that such 'remote dissipation' may be considered as an 'other factor' under Florida law.
Evidence of dissipation of marital assets occurring more than two years before filing a dissolution petition is not barred by section 61.075(1)(i) and may be considered by the trial court as an 'other factor' in equitable distribution.
[1] Evidence of dissipation of marital assets occurring more than two years before filing a dissolution petition may be considered by a trial court as an 'other factor' in eq…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 two-year time period set forth in subsection 61.075(1)(i) does not bar a trial court from considering, as an 'other factor,' dissipation of marital assets which occurs prior to the two-year period preceding the filing of the petition for dissolution”
Court's analysis of the statutory interpretation regarding remote dissipation of marital assets
In a dissolution of marriage case, the wife sought to present evidence of the husband's dissipation or waste of marital assets that occurred more than…
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 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
We reverse one aspect of the supplemental final judgment of dissolution. The wife sought to put on evidence of the husband’s dissipation or waste of marital assets that occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution. It appears that the trial judge read section 61.075(l)(i), Florida Statutes (2006) as precluding such testimony. We agree with the analysis in Beers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109, 114-116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), which held that “the two-year time period set forth in subsection 61.075(1)(i) does not bar a trial court from considering, as an ‘other factor,’ dissipation of marital assets which occurs prior to the two-year period preceding the filing of the petition for dissolution.” See § 61.075(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2006) (stating that in distributing-marital assets and liabilities, the court may consider any “factor[ ] necessary to do equity and justice between the parties”).
We remand to the trial court for the wife to have an opportunity to present evidence of “remote dissipation.” Beers, 724 So. 2d at 115. Whether such evidence should be taken into account in fashioning equitable distribution “is a determination best left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Id.
We affirm the trial judge’s rulings on the special equity and permanent alimony.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.