KAREN M. DUNKEL
v.
JAMES M. DUNKEL
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.
Both parties are jointly responsible for a consolidated student loan obtained for their adult children, and the trial court erred in assigning sole repayment responsibility to one party and offsetting the distribution by reducing the other party's share of marital funds.
[1] In equitable distribution of marital property, when assigning responsibility for a marital debt to one spouse, the trial court must consider the realistic possibility tha…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 trial court's equitable distribution scheme neglects to factor in the very real possibility that the consolidated student loan will never be fully repaid (or will be repaid, in whole or in part, by the adult children), thereby leaving Former Husband with a windfall.”
Court's explanation of the error in the trial court's asset distribution approach
In a dissolution of marriage, the trial court classified a $190,859 consolidated student loan obtained for the parties' adult children as marital debt…
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.
EVANDER, J.
Karen M. Dunkel (“Former Wife”) appeals a supplemental final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in distributing the parties’ marital assets and debts, but we otherwise affirm.
The trial court endeavored to equally divide the parties’ assets and liabilities. It properly found that the consolidated student loan of $190,859.00 obtained for the benefit of the parties’ adult daughter and Former Husband’s adult son from a prior marriage was a marital debt. However, the trial court erred in requiring James M. Dunkel (“Former Husband”) to be solely responsible for such debt and then “equalizing” the overall distribution by reducing Former Wife’s share of certain marital funds held in escrow by $95,429.50 (1/2 of $190,859.00) and increasing Former Husband’s share of the escrowed funds by said amount. The trial court’s equitable distribution scheme neglects to factor in the very real possibility that the consolidated student loan will never be fully repaid1 (or will be repaid, in whole or in part, by the adult children), thereby leaving Former Husband with a windfall. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct this error by making both parties jointly responsible for repayment of the consolidated student loan, and by not making the above referenced adjustment(s) to the distribution of the escrowed marital funds.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED. LAMBERT, C.J., and JAY, JJ., concur.