Source: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-journal/?durl=/DIVCOM%2FJN%2FJNJournal01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2Ffe02086d40f4e68e85257e6c004cead9%21OpenDocument
Timestamp: 2018-05-26 13:47:49
Document Index: 355017808

Matched Legal Cases: ['§61', '§61', '§61', '§61', '§61', '§61', '§61', '§61', '§61', '§5']

Florida Bar Journal – The Commingling of Nonmarital and Marital Funds: Untangling the Changing Character of Assets in Equitable Distribution – The Florida Bar
July/August, 2015 Volume 89, No. 7
by Susan W. Savard
The court must begin with the premise that the distribution of marital assets, including interspousal gifts1 and liabilities should be equal.2 If the presumption of a gift cannot be overcome and what were once nonmarital funds are classified as marital due to joint title, an argument could be made that there is justification for an unequal distribution of the marital assets. The court must consider such factors as the contributions to the marriage by each spouse,3 the economic circumstances of the parties,4 the duration of the marriage,5 or any of the other statutory factors6 that may be relevant in the particular factual scenario presented.
1	Fla. Stat. §61.075(6)(a)1(c) (2014).
2	Fla. Stat. §61.075(1).
3	Fla. Stat. §61.075(1)(a).
4	Fla. Stat. §61.075(1)(b).
5	Fla. Stat. §61.075(1)(c).
6	Fla. Stat. §61.075(1)(a)-(j).
7	Fla. Stat. §61.075(6)(a)2-4.
8	See In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 403 (Fla. 1994).
9	Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) (clear and convincing is also defined as “[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain”); W.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Serv., 896 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). This is a greater burden than preponderance of the evidence, the standard applied in most civil trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the norm for criminal trials. It is also the heightened burden imposed in the termination of parental right cases.
10	See, e.g., Julia v. Russo, 984 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding a presumption of gift where a bank account held with a girlfriend was titled joint tenants with right of survivorship and stating that this presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence); Varela v. Bernachea, 917 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that a creation of joint account with mistress created a presumption of a gift, which could only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence); Mercurio v. Urban, 552 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding a presumption of a gift when the stock was held as tenants in common).
11	Spielberger v. Spielberger, 712 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (placing nonmarital money in a premarital account to which the wife’s name was later added did not create a presumption of a gift when account was not accessed by wife or used for marital purposes); compare with Strough v. Strough, 933 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (placing nonmarital money in account with husband, which was used by both parties, created a presumption that the wife intended a gift).
12	See Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Assoc., 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001) (created a presumption that joint ownership of a bank account by a husband and wife, absent a different designated form of ownership on the signature card, creates a tenancy by the entireties as to creditors).
13	See id. at 53.
14	See Fla. Stat. §61.075(3)(a).
15	See Fla. Stat. §61.075(1).
16	See Bell v. Bell, 68 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), quoting Kovalchick v. Kovalchick, 841 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)).
17	See Bell, 68 So. 3d at 321 (citing Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
18	Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property §5.65 (3d ed. 2010) (Classification II. Burden of Proof, Changes in character: The doctrine of transmutation; Transmutation in general: Three distinct doctrines).
19	Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So. 3d 357, 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Pfrengle v. Pfrengle, 976 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
20	Black’s Law Dictionary (2d pocket ed. 2001).
21	Abdnour, 19 So. 3d at 364.
22	See Valentine v. Van Sickle, 42 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (while husband was out of town for business purposes, wife received check in husband’s name, which represented a personal injury award to husband; opened an account in both parties’ names; and deposited the personal injury settlement proceeds into the newly created jointly titled account).
23	Lakin v. Lakin, 901 So. 2d 186, 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
24	Id. (citing Farrior v. Farrior, 736 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1999); Behrman v. Behrman, 376 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)).
25	Grieco v. Grieco, 917 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
26	Lakin, 901 So. 2d at 190; Grieco, 917 So. 2d at 1052; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 758 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
27	See Grieco, 917 So. 2d 1052; Pinder v. Pinder, 750 So. 2d 651, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
28	See Grieco, 917 So. 2d at 1056.
[Revised: 06-23-2015]