Daniel Thomas McMullen, Husband v. Ann Rowe McMullen, Wife

148 So. 3d 830
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 22, 2014
Docket1D13-6027
StatusPublished

This text of 148 So. 3d 830 (Daniel Thomas McMullen, Husband v. Ann Rowe McMullen, Wife) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daniel Thomas McMullen, Husband v. Ann Rowe McMullen, Wife, 148 So. 3d 830 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution action, we agree with the former husband that the trial court erred in determining that $250,000 of the distribution he received from a non-marital joint venture and transferred into his checking account was subject to equitable distribution; competent substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that those funds were treated, used, or relied on by the parties as a marital asset. See § 61.075(6)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2011); Holden v. Holden, 667 So.2d 867, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing equitable distribution of certificates of deposit purchased with proceeds from a non-marital asset because “[t]he record does not support a conclusion that the parties commingled these non-marital assets [the certificates of deposit] with marital assets”). However, as to the remainder of the equitable distribution award, we disagree with the former husband; competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the former husband’s marital efforts and contributions enhanced the value of the non-marital joint venture and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the enhancement to which the former wife was entitled. See § 61.075(6)(a)l.b., Fla Stat. (2011). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the equitable distribution award related to the $250,000 in the former husband’s checking account, but we affirm the final judgment in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holden v. Holden
667 So. 2d 867 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 So. 3d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-thomas-mcmullen-husband-v-ann-rowe-mcmullen-wife-fladistctapp-2014.