Moon v. Personal Rep. of Estate of Moon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moon v. Personal Rep. of Estate of Moon

742 So. 2d 845, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12382, 1999 WL 743602

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3401

StatusPublished

This text of 742 So. 2d 845 (Moon v. Personal Rep. of Estate of Moon) 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

Moon v. Personal Rep. of Estate of Moon, 742 So. 2d 845, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12382, 1999 WL 743602 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court previously reversed the distribution of marital property in this case. See Moon v. Moon, 594 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). On remand, appellant made a claim against certain individual retirement accounts of her former husband, now deceased. Appellant did not, however, pursue this claim for several years and did not bring the matter to final hearing until July 1998. At that hearing the circuit court made several findings including the following:

The Petitioner (Mrs. Moon) failed to present any evidence to establish the value of the IRAs, and additionally failed to present evidence to establish [846]*846any value regarding the IRAs attributable to passive growth or marital efforts. Petitioner failed to follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals with respect to the six factors to be considered and has failed to present data in the form of expert testimony or otherwise, to the Court to determine the value of Mr. Moon’s IRAs and to separate a portion of the IRAs to Petitioner under the principles of equitable distribution.

As we noted in the initial appeal on this case, counsel must provide such data to the court as is required to support the segregation of marital from non-marital assets and to support valuations that would withstand appellate review. Moon, 594 So.2d at 822. We are unable to say that the circuit court abused its discretion by concluding that Mrs. Moon, through her counsel, failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain her burden. Unfortunately for Mrs. Moon, her attempt to prove that Mr. Moon’s non-marital assets had been used as collateral for marital debt was insufficient. See Farrior v. Farrior, 736 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla.1999).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This court previously reversed the distribution of marital property in this case. See Moon v. Moon, 594 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). On remand, appellant made a claim against certain individual retirement accounts of her former husband, now deceased. Appellant did not, however, pursue this claim for several years and did not bring the matter to final hearing until July 1998. At that hearing the circuit court made several findings including the following:

The Petitioner (Mrs. Moon) failed to present any evidence to establish the value of the IRAs, and additionally failed to present evidence to establish [846]*846any value regarding the IRAs attributable to passive growth or marital efforts. Petitioner failed to follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals with respect to the six factors to be considered and has failed to present data in the form of expert testimony or otherwise, to the Court to determine the value of Mr. Moon’s IRAs and to separate a portion of the IRAs to Petitioner under the principles of equitable distribution.

As we noted in the initial appeal on this case, counsel must provide such data to the court as is required to support the segregation of marital from non-marital assets and to support valuations that would withstand appellate review. Moon, 594 So.2d at 822. We are unable to say that the circuit court abused its discretion by concluding that Mrs. Moon, through her counsel, failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain her burden. Unfortunately for Mrs. Moon, her attempt to prove that Mr. Moon’s non-marital assets had been used as collateral for marital debt was insufficient. See Farrior v. Farrior, 736 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla.1999).

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 845, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12382, 1999 WL 743602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moon-v-personal-rep-of-estate-of-moon-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack