FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D15-3537

_____________________________

RODNEY W. STEWART, Husband,

Appellant,

v.

DARLA JANE STEWART, Wife,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

David Rimmer, Judge.

February 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The appellee, Darla Jane Stewart (the former wife), and the 

appellant, Rodney W. Stewart (the former husband), were married 

from March 2007 to June 2013 when the former wife filed for 

divorce. The former husband followed with a counter petition for 

divorce. After the trial court entered an amended final judgment 

in which it adopted the former wife’s schedule of marital assets 

and liabilities almost entirely, the former husband filed this appeal 

challenging several aspects of the trial court’s equitable 

distribution. We agree that the amended final judgment should be 

reversed and remanded as detailed in this opinion. 

BB&T Account
2

In his first issue on appeal, the former husband argues that 

the trial court erred in valuing the balance of his BB&T account at 

$58,380.75, which was the balance the time the divorce petition 

was filed, instead of using the $3,305.75 balance of the account at 

the time of the final hearing. We agree with the former husband 

that this valuation was in error. 

In equitable distribution under section 61.075(7), Florida 

Statutes (2015), the trial court has discretion to select the 

valuation date of a marital asset and may value different assets as 

of different dates. Generally, it is error to include diminished or 

dissipated assets in equitable distribution unless the asset has 

been reduced due to a party’s misconduct. See Gotro v. Gotro, 218 

So. 3d 494, 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citing Winder v. Winder, 152 

So. 3d 836, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)). Assignment of a dissipated 

asset due to misconduct requires a specific finding by the trial 

court based on evidence that the martial funds were used for one 

party’s own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage. Gotro, 

218 So. 3d at 496-97. Here, the trial court made no finding of 

misconduct, and the evidence would not support such a finding. 

The undisputed testimony at the final hearing showed that the 

former husband’s income had diminished considerably in recent 

years and that he was forced to use monies from the BB&T account 

to satisfy the temporary support obligations to the former wife, 

which included $1,500 a month in temporary alimony and $6,000 

of the former wife’s initial attorney’s fees, as well as to pay the 

costs of the divorce proceedings. As there was no evidence of 

misconduct and the testimony showed the money was diminished 

to pay marital expenses during the proceedings, the trial court 

abused its discretion in assigning the entire $58,380 balance to the 

former husband in equitable distribution. We reverse the 

equitable distribution portion of the amended final judgment and 

remand with instructions to exclude the dissipated value of the 

BB&T account.

Rod Stewart Engineering

The former husband next argues that the trial court erred in 

assigning a positive value for Rod Stewart Engineering to him 

when the company was a pre-marital asset that had decreased in 

value during the marriage. The evidence at the final hearing 
3

showed that the former husband had owned Rod Stewart 

Engineering since 1995, well before the parties’ 2007 marriage. 

The evidence also showed that during the first few years of the 

parties’ marriage, the business was profitable, with its profits 

declining from 2010 onward. The first year of loss for the business 

was 2013. Enhancement in value and appreciation of a nonmarital asset due to either parties’ marital labor is a marital asset. 

See § 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2015). While there may have 

been an argument for assigning some positive value to the 

business as a result of marital labor, the wife carried the burden 

of proving the value of enhancement. See Pereboom v. Pereboom, 

959 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The wife failed to meet 

her burden. Id. Thus, we reverse this portion of the amended final 

judgment and remand with instructions to exclude the $19,498 in 

enhanced value of the non-marital asset.

Marital Home

The former husband advances a similar argument with regard 

to the trial court’s decision to assign a $6,000 positive value for 

parties’ martial home on Arnie’s Way to him. The former husband 

purchased Arnie’s Way in 1992, well before the parties were 

married. Arnie’s Way had a mortgage of $27,000 at the time of the 

marriage. Shortly after the marriage, the former husband took out 

a $230,000 loan from the property, which was used to purchase 

property on West Garden Street. The parties agreed that the value 

of Arnie’s Way at the time of the final hearing was $170,000. The 

former husband argues that the trial court erred in assigning a 

positive $6,000 value to him for Arnie’s Way because only 

enhancement of a marital asset is subject to distribution and all of 

the evidence demonstrated that the non-marital Arnie’s Way had 

only decreased in value by $60,000 during the marriage. This 

argument is misplaced as the $230,000 loan did not establish a 

conclusive value of Arnie’s Way at a period early in the marriage. 

Furthermore, the former wife and her father testified that they 

had expended considerable efforts in fixing up Arnie’s Way; 

however, they failed to offer any evidence as to the specific value 

of their labor. The former wife’s attorney simply argued that her 

labor amounted to $20,000 in enhancements, but she was only 

seeking a “de minimis” amount of $6,000. The trial court accepted 

the $6,000 figure outright and assigned that value to the former 
4

husband. Because the trial court made no findings with regard to 

Arnie’s Way other than to assign a $6,000 value, which did not 

have an evidentiary basis, this valuation is reversed and remanded 

for recalculation.

West Garden Street Property

The former husband argues that the trial court erred in 

establishing the mortgage balance on the West Garden Street 

property at $182,000 when the evidence clearly showed the 

balance was $186,349. The former wife concedes error. The West 

Garden Street valuation is reversed and remanded for 

recalculation.

Honda Odyssey

The former husband challenges the trial court’s decision to 

assign a $5,000 value for a Honda Odyssey to him when he claims 

the evidence showed the former wife drove the Odyssey, it became 

inoperable under her care, and she failed to apply the insurance 

proceeds to repair the vehicle. This argument is misplaced as the 

only evidence of the valuation of the Odyssey came from the 

husband’s own financial affidavit listing its value at $5,000. 

Further, while there was testimony that the former wife drove the 

vehicle, the testimony also showed that the former husband’s 

name was on the title, which he refused to sign over to the former 

wife. As such, the trial court properly assigned a $5,000 value for 

the Odyssey to the former husband.

Personal Property

Finally, the former husband argues that the trial court erred 

in placing a value on the personal property of the marriage of 

$38,660, as reflected in error in the former husband’s first financial 

affidavit, as opposed to the corrected $15,795 value on the former 

husband’s amended financial affidavit. The former husband did 

testify that the value of the personal property in his amended 

financial affidavit was the correct amount. The trial court did not 

make any specific findings as to the value of the particular items 

being distributed; therefore, is unclear as to whether this 

valuation was inequitable given the former husband’s testimony. 

The personal property amount is also remanded for recalculation.
5

The amended final judgment is reversed and remanded as 

detailed above. The remainder of the amended final judgment is 

affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. 

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Gregory D. Smith of Gregory D. Smith, P.A., and Kathleen E. 

Anderson of Anderson & Runco, Pensacola, for Appellee.