WILLIAM I. SIEGMEISTER
v.
JOYCE D. HELLARD
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.
A trial court's determination that assets acquired after the parties' reconciliation constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution is affirmed when the court's factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness and the appellant fails to demonstrate error based on the limited appellate record.
[1] The burden of proof rests on the spouse seeking to prove that an asset acquired during the marriage is not marital property.
[2] A reconciliation after a separation and filing for divorce abrogates executory provisions of a prior marital settlement agreement, rendering assets acquired after reconci…
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 intelligenceIn a marriage dissolution proceeding following the parties' reconciliation in 2001, the trial court conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing and deter…
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 Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 13, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0869 Lower Tribunal No. 16-20239
________________
William I. Siegmeister,
Appellant,
vs.
Joyce D. Hellard,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia B. Caballero, Judge. Richard Siegmeister, P.A., and Richard Siegmeister, for appellant. Law Offices of Karen J. Haas, and Karen J. Haas, for appellee. Before SCALES, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In this marriage dissolution proceeding, appellant William Siegmeister (Husband) appeals an April 11, 2023 equitable distribution order in favor of appellee Joyce Hellard (Wife).
In Hellard v. Siegmeister, 305 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Hellard
I”), we affirmed the trial court’s order that partially distributed the parties’ marital assets but remanded for further proceedings to allow the trial court to determine and equitably distribute certain post-reconciliation1 assets,
pertaining particularly to a condominium located in South Miami, Florida, and two investment accounts. Id. at 45. Consistent with our Hellard I remand instructions, after the Hellard I mandate issued, the trial court conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing,2 and determined that the South Miami condominium and the two investment accounts, all titled in Husband’s name,
indeed constituted marital property of the couple, subject to equitable distribution.
In this appeal, Husband argues that he met his evidentiary burden to establish that the subject property was not marital property. See Jahnke v.
Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“’The burden of proof is on the spouse who wishes to show that an asset or liability acquired during the marriage is not . . . marital . . . .’” (quoting Gladstone v. Gladstone, 733
So. 2d 1090, 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))). He further argues that the trial court’s marital property determinations are not supported by competent,
substantial evidence. See § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“[A]ny distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in [section 61.075(1)]”); Apesteguy v.
Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
The trial court’s order comes to us with a presumption of correctness.
Pardes v. Pardes, 335 So. 3d 1241, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). Having been provided only a limited record of the trial court’s evidentiary hearing, we are unable to conclude that the trial court’s marital property factual findings are erroneous. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150,
1152 (Fla. 1980). We, therefore, affirm the challenged order.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Massiel Y. Sadeh v. Drusso Calenzani, 319 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Daniela Dalmazzo v. Enzo Dalmazzo, 335 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)