WILLIAM J. FOLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
HARICLIA D. FOLEY, 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 dissolution case, Husband appeals the trial court's unequal distribution of a condominium that Wife owned before marriage but which became marital property. The court reverses, holding that mere pre-marital ownership and sole title do not justify unequal distribution of a marital asset absent other statutory factors.
The court reverses, holding that equitable distribution of marital assets must be equal unless legally sufficient justification based on statutory factors supports unequal distribution. Mere pre-marital ownership and sole title are insufficient to warrant unequal distribution or a "special equity" where the property was converted to marital use early in the marriage.
[1] A marital asset should be distributed equally unless legally sufficient justification for an unequal distribution is provided based on statutory factors.
[2] Holding sole record title to a property until a certain point in a marriage is insufficient, on its own, to support a claim for special equity.
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“Equitable distribution of a marital asset should be equal, unless legally sufficient justification for an unequal distribution is given based on the relevant statutory factors.”
Establishes the foundational rule that marital assets receive equal distribution absent specific statutory justification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and Wife married in 1994. Wife owned a condominium in St. Augustine Beach; Husband owned properties in Orlando. After marriage, they lived in …
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 Nonmarital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
William Foley [“Husband”] appeals the equitable distribution contained in the final judgment1 of the dissolution of his marriage to Hariclia Foley [“Wife”].
When Husband and Wife were married in 1994, both owned real property. Wife owned a condominium in St. Augustine Beach, where she was living. Husband owned a home in Orlando on Telegraph Hill and an interest in a rental property on Pacific Heights Circle. After the marriage, the couple lived in the Telegraph Hill home and kept the condominium as a rental. The income and expenses of the condominium were handled through their joint bank account. In 2001, they paid off Wife’s pre-existing mortgage on the condominium. Husband sold the Pacific Heights and Telegraph Hill properties and the proceeds were deposited in the joint account. Eventually, the parties built a new marital home on Cypress Isle Court in Orlando. In 2002, the Foleys placed a $110,000 mortgage on the condominium to obtain funds to start a business and make home improvements. At that time, Wife transferred title to the condominium into their names jointly.
The sole issue on appeal concerns the trial court’s decision to make an unequal distribution of the condominium property, which the trial court designated a “special equity” in the condominium. From what we can glean from the order, the trial court appears to have done this simply because Wife had owned the property at the time of the marriage and it was titled solely in her name until 2002. There is no doubt, however, that this property was a marital asset. Wife does not even dispute this point. She simply suggests that having sole title until 2002 gives her the right to a “special equity.” We disagree and reverse.
Equitable distribution of a marital asset should be equal, unless legally sufficient justification for an unequal distribution is given based on the relevant statutory factors. § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); see Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 992 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In this case, the trial court made numerous non-controversial factual findings and then offered only two reasons for the unequal distribution. First, the trial court said that it could treat the condominium as a non-marital asset of Wife, but we can envision no basis for that conclusion given the way this property was used. It lost any non-marital character early in the marriage. Second, the trial court said Wife was entitled to a “special equity” because she held sole record title until 2002, but title alone is insufficient to support a “special equity.”2 In this case, *1033there is simply no fact or circumstance, such as improvements to the property with Wife’s non-marital funds, that would warrant unequal distribution of the condominium, just as there are no facts that would warrant a special equity in the properties owned by Husband that were brought into the marriage and also became assets of the marriage.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ava G. Byrne v. Byrne, 128 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.... ” Any justification for fashioning an unequal distribution must be “legally sufficient.” Foley v. Foley, 19 So. 3d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Relying on the “equity” factor articulated in section 61.075(l)(j), the trial court justified its decision not to assign half of the condominium’s debt to Dan by stating that, although Ava wished to preserve her reputation…
-
Davis v. Bonny P. Davis, 32 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…l equity on which the trial court improperly relied. “Equitable distribution of a marital asset should be equal, unless legally sufficient justification for an unequal distribution is given based on the relevant statutory factors.” Foley v. Foley, 19 So. 3d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see also Stough v. Stough, 18 So. 3d 601, 604-05 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (reversing unequal distribution when factors upon which the trial court relied did not weigh in favor of an unequal distribution), rev. denied, 26 So. 3d…
-
King v. Stetson Wilkie King, 273 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…ssets and liabilities."). The record confirms that the former husband purchased the house during the marriage and titled it in his own name. Because title alone is insufficient to support an unequal distribution of the property, Foley v. Foley, 19 So. 3d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), the trial court should have made findings as to whether the house was a marital or nonmarital asset and stated its reasons for awarding the house solely to the former husband. The former wife also argues that the trial…
Authorities Cited
- Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 992 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- In re Amendments to the Fla. Fam. Law Rules of Procedure, 987 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2008)