EARL LADON LANDRUM, JR., FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MELISSA LYNN LANDRUM, FORMER 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.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that a 3.5-acre parcel of real property was entirely a marital asset. The court held that when a spouse acquires an interest in property before marriage and later acquires an additional interest during marriage with marital funds, only the interest acquired during marriage becomes marital property; the pre-marital interest remains nonmarital.
The trial court erred in determining that the entire 3.5-acre parcel was a marital asset. Husband's pre-marital half-interest remained nonmarital property, while only the half-interest he acquired during the marriage with marital funds constituted a marital asset. Acquisition of an additional interest in property during marriage does not convert a pre-marital interest into marital property.
[1] An asset acquired by a spouse before the marriage is a nonmarital asset.
[2] Assets acquired during the marriage by either spouse individually or by both spouses jointly are marital assets.
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“Therefore, the half-interest Husband acquired in the 3.5-acre parcel of the Pigeon Creek property before the marriage was a nonmarital asset, while the interest he acquired during the marriage with marital funds was a marital asset.”
Establishes the core holding that pre-marital and marital interests in the same property retain their separate character
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhen the parties married in 2001, Husband owned a half-interest in a 3.5-acre parcel (with his sister owning the other half) and solely owned a 13-acr…
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 Legal Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband in this dissolution action appeals a final order equitably distributing the parties’ marital assets. Husband raises several issues with the distributions of real property in that order, and after careful consideration, we find one preserved error that requires reversal.
Before the trial court could equitably distribute the marital property, it had to determine which assets were marital. One of those assets was the Pigeon Creek property, consisting of two contiguous parcels, one 13 acres and the other 3.5 acres. When the parties married in 2001, Husband and his sister each owned an undivided half-interest in the smaller parcel, and Husband solely owned the larger parcel. During the marriage, the parties gave Hus*487band’s sister money to pay the property taxes on a different tract of land she owned. As repayment, she deeded to Husband her half-interest in the smaller Pigeon Creek parcel. Thus, both Pigeon Creek parcels were titled solely in Husband’s name when the marriage was dissolved. The trial court determined all of the 3.5-acre parcel was a marital asset because Husband acquired his sister’s interest with marital funds.
We review de novo a trial court’s legal conclusion that an asset is marital or nonmarital. Smith v. Smith, 971 So.2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Assets acquired during the marriage by either spouse individually or by both spouses jointly are marital assets. § 61.075(6)(a)(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). On the other hand, assets acquired by either party before the marriage are nonmarital assets. § 61.075(6)(b)(l). Therefore, the half-interest Husband acquired in the 3.5-acre parcel of the Pigeon Creek property before the marriage was a nonmarital asset, while the interest he acquired during the marriage with marital funds was a marital asset. Husband’s acquisition of his sister’s half-interest in the parcel with marital funds did not convert his pre-marital half-interest into a marital asset. Kittinger v. Kittinger, 582 So.2d 139, 139-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Therefore, the trial court erred in determining that the 3.5-acre parcel of the Pigeon Creek property was entirely a marital asset. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of an amended final order consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
MAKAR and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 971 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Kittinger v. Kittinger, 582 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)