BRIDGETT BETTS, APPELLANT,
v.
RICKY BETTS, 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 award of a dollar-for-dollar equitable credit to the former husband for mortgage payments he made on the former wife's premarital duplex. The court held that equitable distribution must be based on the actual reduction in the mortgage principal, not the full amount of payments made.
The equitable credit awarded to the former husband must be based on the amount by which the marital funds reduced the outstanding mortgage balance, not the full dollar amount of the payments made. A dollar-for-dollar credit was improper because no evidence was presented demonstrating the extent to which the mortgage payments reduced the outstanding balance.
[1] When marital assets are used to reduce the mortgage on nonmarital property, the increase in equity is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
[2] A dollar-for-dollar credit for marital funds used to pay down a mortgage on nonmarital property is improper; the credit must be based on the amount by which the use of ma…
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“when marital assets are used during the marriage to reduce-the mortgage on [nonmarital] property, the increase in equity is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution”
Establishes the fundamental principle that mortgage paydown using marital funds creates a marital asset subject to equitable distribution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBridgett and Ricky Betts were married in November 2004. During the marriage, Ricky contributed $350 per month toward the mortgage on Bridgett's premar…
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
Bridgett Betts (the former wife) challenges the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, raising several issues on appeal. We find merit in the former wife’s contention that the trial court erred in awarding *959a dollar-for-dollar equitable credit to Ricky Betts (the former husband) for the contributions he made to the mortgage encumbering the former wife’s premarital duplex. We therefore reverse the equitable distribution portion of the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.1
“[W]hen marital assets are used during the marriage to reduce-the mortgage on [nonmarital] property, the increase in equity is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.” Somasca v. Somasca, 171 So.3d 780, 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Ballard v. Ballard, 158 So.3d 641, 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). It was undisputed that the former husband contributed $350 per month toward the mortgage on the former wife’s premarital duplex from the date the parties were married in November 2004 until the date the former wife’s side of the duplex burned down in November 2006. The trial court therefore determined that the former husband was entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit for the payments he made during this twenty-four-month period. This was error. The credit awarded must instead be based upon “the amount by which the use of marital funds to pay down the mortgage reduced the indebtedness on the [property].” Somasca, 171 So.3d at 783 (emphasis added); see also Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So.3d 357, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“The trial court ... correctly found that marital assets had been used to reduce the outstanding balance (the pay-down) on the home’s mortgage and that the paydown of the mortgage was a mari tal asset subject to equitable distribution.”); Cole v. Roberts] 661 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“[T]he trial court should debit the distribution of assets to the husband in the ainount of one-half of the marital funds contributed towards reducing the mortgage debt on the condominium.”). Here there was no evidence presented demonstrating the extent to which the former husband’s payments reduced the outstanding balance on the duplex’s mortgage. In fact, in denying the former wife’s motion for rehearing as to this issue, the trial court stated that “[neither party presented any evidence or argument regarding the increase ... in equity in the [former wife’s] property upon which the Court could make any such finding.”2
Because, the trial court erred in calculating the equitable credit awarded to the former husband for the contributions he made to the mortgage encumbering the former wife’s duplex, we reverse the equitable distribution. On remand, the trial court shall recalculate the equitable distribution in accordance with this opinion. The trial court may readdress any portion of the equitable distribution or related alimony calculations as necessary.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Serap Frederick v. Frederick, 257 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Cole v. Roberts, 661 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Ballard v. Ballard, 158 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Somasca v. Somasca, 171 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)