Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
Kevin Patrick Donahue v. Brittany Charleston Donahue
Case Number:
Judge: Brian Cnage
Court: Circuit Court, Pasco County, Florida
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Dade City, Florida family law divorce lawyers represented the husband and wife on a marriage dissolution dispute.
The parties were married on August 15, 2015, and separated in April 2021. The Former Husband filed a petition for dissolution on May 28, 2021. On appeal, the Former Husband challenges the valuation of several assets in the equitable distribution scheme, including the marital home, several retirement accounts, the Former Husband's business, and the Former Husband's postfiling earnings from the business. We address each in turn.
"We review de novo the characterization of an asset as marital or nonmarital," but "[c]ompetent, substantial evidence must support the trial court's valuation of the asset." Tradler v. Tradler, 100 So.3d 735, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). "The standard of review for a trial court's selection of a valuation date for a marital asset is abuse of discretion." Leonardis v. Leonardis, 30 So.3d 568, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
The Former Husband argues that the court abused its discretion by valuing the marital home as of the date of filing instead of the date of the final hearing where there was uncontroverted evidence presented that the value of the home had passively-and substantially-appreciated during the pendency of the proceedings. We agree. The record shows that the value of the house had increased from $320,000 on the date of filing to at least $450,000 by the date of the final hearing. There was no evidence presented that this increase was the result of either party's active efforts.
"Normally, '[w]hen marital assets have appreciated passively since the filing date, the date of the final hearing generally should be used.' "Reese v. Reese, 363 So.3d 1202, 1208 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Erdman v. Erdman, 301 So.3d 316, 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)). But here, the court used the value of the home as of the filing date without explaining its reasoning for applying an exception to the general rule; nor is such an explanation readily discernable from the record. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider its valuation of the marital home.
Donahue v. Donahue, 2D2023-1883 (Fla. App. Nov 15, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: