DANIEL THOMAS MCMULLEN, HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
ANN ROWE MCMULLEN, WIFE, 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 trial court erred in treating $250,000 from a non-marital joint venture as marital property subject to equitable distribution, but properly awarded the former wife a portion of the enhancement in value to the non-marital venture resulting from the former husband's marital efforts.
Funds from a non-marital joint venture transferred to a checking account are not subject to equitable distribution absent evidence that the parties treated, used, or relied on them as marital assets, but a spouse may receive equitable distribution for marital efforts that enhanced the value of a non-marital asset.
[1] Non-marital assets transferred to a separate account without evidence of commingling or treatment as marital property are not subject to equitable distribution under Flor…
[2] A spouse may receive equitable distribution for the portion of enhancement in value to a non-marital asset attributable to the other spouse's marital efforts and contribu…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 record does not support a conclusion that the parties commingled these non-marital assets [the certificates of deposit] with marital assets”
Court citing Holden v. Holden to explain that non-marital assets transferred to a separate account without commingling are not subject to equitable distribution
In a dissolution action, the former husband received $250,000 from a non-marital joint venture and transferred it into his checking account. 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 Equitable Distribution Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
In this dissolution action, we agree with the former husband that the trial court erred in determining that $250,000 of the distribution he received from a non-marital joint venture and transferred into his checking account was subject to equitable distribution; competent substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that those funds were treated, used, or relied on by the parties as a marital asset. See § 61.075(6)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2011); Holden v. Holden, 667 So.2d 867, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing equitable distribution of certificates of deposit purchased with proceeds from a non-marital asset because “[t]he record does not support a conclusion that the parties commingled these non-marital assets [the certificates of deposit] with marital assets”). However, as to the remainder of the equitable distribution award, we disagree with the former husband; competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the former husband’s marital efforts and contributions enhanced the value of the non-marital joint venture and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the enhancement to which the former wife was entitled. See § 61.075(6)(a)l.b., Fla Stat. (2011). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the equitable distribution award related to the $250,000 in the former husband’s checking account, but we affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.