Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2032 Lower Tribunal No. 23-3781-FC-04 ________________
Maria Noss, Appellant,
vs.
Ronald Noss, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia Del Rey, Judge.
Sandy T. Fox, P.A., Sandy T. Fox, and Sara E. Ross, for appellant.
Law Offices of Kurt R. Klaus, Jr., and Kurt R. Klaus, Jr., for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
MILLER, J. In this high-conflict family case, appellant, Maria Noss, the wife,
appeals from a partial final judgment dissolving her marriage to appellee,
Ronald Noss, the husband. The trial court comprehensively addressed
equitable distribution, child support, and timesharing in the integrated
judgment, and the wife raises a myriad of issues on appeal. We summarily
affirm in all respects, save discrete aspects of the equitable distribution and
the child support award. 1
I
In 2010, the wife opened Premier Labor Solutions, Corp., a staffing
agency. The parties wed two years later, and the union yielded two children.
The husband worked for a short time in a secretarial capacity and then
established an art installation section at Premier. All transactions, including
invoicing and payroll, were conducted through Premier and its payroll
servicer, FrankCrum, and the profits derived from the installations were
deposited in Premier’s accounts.
In 2023, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The wife
continued working at Premier, but the husband left the company and
established Global Art Installation. He continued servicing many of
1 We do not construe the aspects of the final judgment addressing the grandparents as mandatory but rather permissive, and we note that the trial court accounted for the payment of the husband’s debts by providing a credit.
2 Premier’s customers through his new entity, while simultaneously acquiring
new clients.
The parties filed pretrial catalogues and financial affidavits in the
dissolution case. The financial affidavits reflected the parties’ respective
gross income, deductions, net income, and nonmarital assets, along with
marital assets. Both parties identified two vehicles acquired after the
marriage as marital assets. The husband owned the first outright, while the
second, owned by the wife, was encumbered by a substantial loan, resulting
in negative equity.
The husband amended his pretrial catalogue before trial, assigning
Premier a value of $10 million. The wife contended Premier’s value should
be measured by its annual earnings, which slightly exceeded $1 million.
Before trial, the husband moved to bifurcate the proceedings so he
could obtain additional discovery bearing on Premier’s value. The wife
objected, and the trial court orally denied the motion.
At trial, the husband asserted that Premier was a marital asset subject
to direct distribution. He could not identify Premier’s specific liabilities and
assets, but he provided annual revenue estimates. He conceded that he
continued servicing Premier’s clients through his newly founded entity, and
3 he purportedly accounted for that windfall by reducing Premier’s actual
value.
The husband attested that the two vehicles were marital assets, and
he estimated that the wife owned jewelry that was “probably” worth $60,000,
including her wedding ring, and another $25,000 to $30,000 in both purses
and household furnishings.
The wife conversely argued Premier was a nonmarital asset. She
sharply disputed the husband’s estimates of annual revenue and provided
testimony as to the entity’s assets and liabilities. She further attested that
she paid the husband’s credit cards after filing for divorce, and she confirmed
the financial circumstances of the vehicles.
The lower court ultimately granted bifurcation for the purpose of later
valuing Premier but ordered the wife to pay the husband fifty percent of
Premier’s cash assets. Those assets consisted of checking and savings
accounts held by the business.
The court further ordered the wife to pay half the value the husband
imputed to the jewelry, purses, and furnishings, along with half of the $15,000
“[c]ash in house.” The judgment was silent as to the vehicles, and child
support was computed in accord with net incomes derived from an
unelaborated worksheet. This appeal followed.
4 II
A
We review equitable distribution rulings for an abuse of discretion. See
Diaz v. Diaz, 300 So. 3d 767, 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). “A trial court’s
determination that an asset is marital or nonmarital involves mixed questions
of law and fact. Although we defer to the trial court’s factual findings if they
are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we review the trial court’s
legal conclusions de novo.” Gromet v. Jensen, 201 So. 3d 132, 135 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2015). In the same vein, child support awards are committed to the
sound discretion of the trial court, subject to “explicit factual findings
concerning the actual incomes attributable to the parties, the amount and
source of any imputed income, the probable and potential earnings level,
and the adjustments to income.” Aguirre v. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d 1203, 1207
(Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
B
“Generally stated, equitable distribution of marital assets is a three-
step process: (1) identification of marital and nonmarital assets, (2) valuation
of marital assets, and (3) distribution of marital assets as statutorily
prescribed.” Keurst v. Keurst, 202 So. 3d 123, 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing
§ 61.075(1), (3), Fla. Stat. (2016)). Although assets acquired by either party
5 prior to the marriage are nonmarital, “[t]he enhancement in value and
appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting from the efforts of either party
during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of
marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both” is marital.
§ 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2024).
Efforts and improvements do “not transform the entire [nonmarital]
asset into a marital asset.” Martin v. Martin, 923 So. 2d 1236, 1238–39 (Fla.
1st DCA 2006). Instead, it is the “enhancement in value and appreciation
which becomes a marital asset.” Id. at 1239 (citation omitted).
C
Child support determinations must conform with the guidelines set forth
in section 61.30 of the Florida Statutes. The trial court is required to render
specific findings as to gross and net incomes. See J.A.D. v. K.M.A., 264 So.
3d 1080, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (reversing judgment to make “specific
findings concerning the specific numbers that it used to calculate the amount
of child support”).
D
Turning to this case, the wife acquired Premier before the marriage.
Hence, it was not a marital asset. But the asset appreciated during the
marriage, largely because of the wife’s labor. Consequently, the trial court’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2032 Lower Tribunal No. 23-3781-FC-04 ________________
Maria Noss, Appellant,
vs.
Ronald Noss, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia Del Rey, Judge.
Sandy T. Fox, P.A., Sandy T. Fox, and Sara E. Ross, for appellant.
Law Offices of Kurt R. Klaus, Jr., and Kurt R. Klaus, Jr., for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
MILLER, J. In this high-conflict family case, appellant, Maria Noss, the wife,
appeals from a partial final judgment dissolving her marriage to appellee,
Ronald Noss, the husband. The trial court comprehensively addressed
equitable distribution, child support, and timesharing in the integrated
judgment, and the wife raises a myriad of issues on appeal. We summarily
affirm in all respects, save discrete aspects of the equitable distribution and
the child support award. 1
I
In 2010, the wife opened Premier Labor Solutions, Corp., a staffing
agency. The parties wed two years later, and the union yielded two children.
The husband worked for a short time in a secretarial capacity and then
established an art installation section at Premier. All transactions, including
invoicing and payroll, were conducted through Premier and its payroll
servicer, FrankCrum, and the profits derived from the installations were
deposited in Premier’s accounts.
In 2023, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The wife
continued working at Premier, but the husband left the company and
established Global Art Installation. He continued servicing many of
1 We do not construe the aspects of the final judgment addressing the grandparents as mandatory but rather permissive, and we note that the trial court accounted for the payment of the husband’s debts by providing a credit.
2 Premier’s customers through his new entity, while simultaneously acquiring
new clients.
The parties filed pretrial catalogues and financial affidavits in the
dissolution case. The financial affidavits reflected the parties’ respective
gross income, deductions, net income, and nonmarital assets, along with
marital assets. Both parties identified two vehicles acquired after the
marriage as marital assets. The husband owned the first outright, while the
second, owned by the wife, was encumbered by a substantial loan, resulting
in negative equity.
The husband amended his pretrial catalogue before trial, assigning
Premier a value of $10 million. The wife contended Premier’s value should
be measured by its annual earnings, which slightly exceeded $1 million.
Before trial, the husband moved to bifurcate the proceedings so he
could obtain additional discovery bearing on Premier’s value. The wife
objected, and the trial court orally denied the motion.
At trial, the husband asserted that Premier was a marital asset subject
to direct distribution. He could not identify Premier’s specific liabilities and
assets, but he provided annual revenue estimates. He conceded that he
continued servicing Premier’s clients through his newly founded entity, and
3 he purportedly accounted for that windfall by reducing Premier’s actual
value.
The husband attested that the two vehicles were marital assets, and
he estimated that the wife owned jewelry that was “probably” worth $60,000,
including her wedding ring, and another $25,000 to $30,000 in both purses
and household furnishings.
The wife conversely argued Premier was a nonmarital asset. She
sharply disputed the husband’s estimates of annual revenue and provided
testimony as to the entity’s assets and liabilities. She further attested that
she paid the husband’s credit cards after filing for divorce, and she confirmed
the financial circumstances of the vehicles.
The lower court ultimately granted bifurcation for the purpose of later
valuing Premier but ordered the wife to pay the husband fifty percent of
Premier’s cash assets. Those assets consisted of checking and savings
accounts held by the business.
The court further ordered the wife to pay half the value the husband
imputed to the jewelry, purses, and furnishings, along with half of the $15,000
“[c]ash in house.” The judgment was silent as to the vehicles, and child
support was computed in accord with net incomes derived from an
unelaborated worksheet. This appeal followed.
4 II
A
We review equitable distribution rulings for an abuse of discretion. See
Diaz v. Diaz, 300 So. 3d 767, 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). “A trial court’s
determination that an asset is marital or nonmarital involves mixed questions
of law and fact. Although we defer to the trial court’s factual findings if they
are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we review the trial court’s
legal conclusions de novo.” Gromet v. Jensen, 201 So. 3d 132, 135 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2015). In the same vein, child support awards are committed to the
sound discretion of the trial court, subject to “explicit factual findings
concerning the actual incomes attributable to the parties, the amount and
source of any imputed income, the probable and potential earnings level,
and the adjustments to income.” Aguirre v. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d 1203, 1207
(Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
B
“Generally stated, equitable distribution of marital assets is a three-
step process: (1) identification of marital and nonmarital assets, (2) valuation
of marital assets, and (3) distribution of marital assets as statutorily
prescribed.” Keurst v. Keurst, 202 So. 3d 123, 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing
§ 61.075(1), (3), Fla. Stat. (2016)). Although assets acquired by either party
5 prior to the marriage are nonmarital, “[t]he enhancement in value and
appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting from the efforts of either party
during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of
marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both” is marital.
§ 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2024).
Efforts and improvements do “not transform the entire [nonmarital]
asset into a marital asset.” Martin v. Martin, 923 So. 2d 1236, 1238–39 (Fla.
1st DCA 2006). Instead, it is the “enhancement in value and appreciation
which becomes a marital asset.” Id. at 1239 (citation omitted).
C
Child support determinations must conform with the guidelines set forth
in section 61.30 of the Florida Statutes. The trial court is required to render
specific findings as to gross and net incomes. See J.A.D. v. K.M.A., 264 So.
3d 1080, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (reversing judgment to make “specific
findings concerning the specific numbers that it used to calculate the amount
of child support”).
D
Turning to this case, the wife acquired Premier before the marriage.
Hence, it was not a marital asset. But the asset appreciated during the
marriage, largely because of the wife’s labor. Consequently, the trial court’s
6 finding that the increase in value that occurred during the marriage was
subject to equitable distribution is supported by competent, substantial
evidence. See Young v. Young, 606 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
(confirming that a trial court cannot refuse to distribute the appreciated value
of a nonmarital asset improved by marital labor or funds “because the [non-
owner spouse] ha[s] not established how much the improvements enhanced
the value of the property”; rather the burden was on the owner spouse to
prove “whether any part of the enhanced value was exempt from
distribution”).
The wife contends that the lower court erred in bifurcating the
proceedings to allow further valuation evidence. Cognizant of the
deficiencies inherent in conducting an asset-based valuation of a staffing
agency, we find no abuse of discretion in the bifurcation. To the extent the
trial court ordered the direct equitable distribution of Premier’s corporate
accounts, however, we are constrained to reverse. The assets held by the
corporation were but one component in the yet-to-be-completed valuation
determination, and “the trial court has no power to order a transfer of
corporate assets without joinder of the corporation.” Ashourian v. Ashourian,
483 So. 2d 486, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Feldman v. Feldman, 390
So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (concluding that trial court “was not
7 empowered to order the transfer of the assets of a corporation which was
not a party to the litigation”). Although the court has the authority to distribute
the wife’s interest in Premier, it has no authority to distribute the assets of
the non-joined company itself. See Buchanan v. Buchanan, 225 So. 3d
1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
We are constrained to remand the child support award and the
distribution, or lack thereof, of certain marital assets and liabilities. As to
child support, the numbers reflected in the unelaborated worksheet
appended to the final judgment are not tethered to the parties’ financial
affidavits or testimony of record. We therefore remand the award. Upon
remand, the trial court must first compute gross income and then arrive at
net income by accounting for authorized deductions. See Addie v. Coale,
120 So. 3d 44, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“[T]he trial court is required to
determine the net income of each parent and . . . include adequate findings
[respecting the child support award] in the final judgment.”).
Lastly, there was no evidence of record concerning the $15,000 in cash
in the home; and, while “an owner of property is generally qualified to testify
as to the fair market value of his property,” State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d
330, 333 n.6 (Fla. 1991), the husband failed to describe any of the wife’s
jewelry, other personal items, or the parties’ furnishings with any specificity
8 to support his broad, conclusory estimate. 2 Hence, the equitable distribution
of these items fails for want of competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly,
we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Upon remand, the trial court
shall further equitably distribute the inadvertently omitted vehicles.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
2 “[E]ngagement and wedding rings are gifts . . . and should not be included in the equitable distribution scheme.” Moody v. Newton, 264 So. 3d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).