THERESA ANNAS, WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
STUART ANNAS, HUSBAND, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's equitable distribution scheme because the trial court improperly assigned to the former wife money she had withdrawn from a joint bank account for reasonable living expenses during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings. The court held that assets used by a party for necessary living expenses during dissolution should not be included in the equitable distribution scheme absent a finding of misconduct.
No. The trial court erred in assigning money to the former wife as part of equitable distribution when there was no evidence the funds were used for anything other than reasonable living expenses pending resolution of the dissolution petition. Such assets should not be assigned to the party as part of the distribution scheme absent a finding of misconduct.
[1] Funds withdrawn by a party from a joint bank account for reasonable living expenses pending a dissolution of marriage proceeding should not be assigned to that party as p…
[2] To include a dissipated asset in the equitable distribution scheme, there must be evidence of the spending spouse's intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset an…
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“where an asset is used by a party out of necessity for reasonable living expenses, the asset should not be assigned to the party as a part of the scheme of distribution absent a finding of misconduct by that party”
Establishes the legal standard that reasonable living expenses during dissolution should not be counted in equitable distribution without misconduct findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former wife withdrew money from the parties' bank account during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings. There was no evidence suggesting she…
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 Dissipation Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
The former wife seeks review of various financial provisions contained in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered by the trial court. Because there is nothing in the judgment to suggest that the former wife used the money she withdrew from the parties’ bank account for other than reasonable living expenses pending resolution of her petition for dissolution of the marriage, the trial court erred when it assigned that money to her as a part of the scheme of equitable distribution. See, e.g., Parks v. Parks, 18 So.3d 1072, 1073-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (where an asset is used by a party out of necessity for reasonable living expenses, the asset should not be assigned to the party as a part of the scheme of distribution absent a finding of misconduct by that party); Roth v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580, 584-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“to include a dissipated asset in the equitable distribution scheme, there must be evidence of the spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset, and the trial court must make a specific finding that the dissipation resulted from intentional misconduct”); Akers v. Akers, 582 So.2d 1212, 1216-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (it is error to include in the scheme of distribution funds used by a party during pendency of the dissolution proceeding to maintain her customary standard of living). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s scheme of equitable distribution. On remand, the trial court shall again address the issue of equitable distribution without talcing into account money used by either party during pen-dency of the dissolution proceeding for reasonable living expenses. We have considered appellant’s remaining complaints, and conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm as to those issues without further discussion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winder v. Dian A. Winder, 152 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ring of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves.’"” Id. (quoting Roth, 973 So. 2d at 585 (stating there “must be evidence of spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset”)). See also Annas v. Annas, 29 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that nothing in the judgment suggested that the former wife used the money she withdrew from the parties’ bank account for anything other than reasonable living expenses pending resolution of the case and the trial court…
-
Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…Tummings v. Francois, 82 So. 3d 955, 958-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Steedman v. Chenoweth, 27 So. 3d 78, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Furthermore, such expenditures are proper to maintain the parties’ customary standard of living. See, e.g., Annas v. Annas, 29 So. 3d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Demont, 67 So. 3d at 1103-04. Here, the record evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Appellee’s dental practice was in dire financial straits for some time before Appellant filed her divorce petition. The recor…
-
Jones v. Jones, 239 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…able distribution scheme”); see also Walker v. Walker, 85 So. 3d 553, 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that “the record is devoid of any evidence of misconduct by the Former Husband or his intentional destruction of marital assets”); Annas v. Annas, 29 So. 3d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Because there is nothing in the judgment to suggest that the former wife used the money she withdrew from the parties’ bank account for other than reasonable living expenses pending resolution of her petition for dissolut…
Authorities Cited
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Akers v. Akers, 582 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Parks v. Parks, 18 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)