Case Name: Brenton H. HORTON, Appellant, v. Connie Sue HORTON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-07-14
Citations: 433 So. 2d 1386
Docket Number: No. 82-870
Parties: Brenton H. HORTON, Appellant, v. Connie Sue HORTON, Appellee.
Judges: ORFINGER, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 433
Pages: 1386–1387

Head Matter:
Brenton H. HORTON, Appellant, v. Connie Sue HORTON, Appellee.
No. 82-870.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 14, 1983.
Mark S. Peters, of Stevens & Peters, P.A., Merritt Island, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a marriage dissolution case. The questions on appeal are whether the trial court erred in awarding a special equity in property and whether the trial court erred in requiring the husband to pay the wife's attorney's fees. We reverse.
Apparently the trial judge found that because the wife contributed somewhat to the support of the husband while they were married that she acquired a special equity in his property which he bought before they were married. It is axiomatic that any asset acquired before a marriage is not a marital asset. Canakaris v. Ganakar is, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980), Gallagher v. Gallagher, 399 So.2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). When a marriage partner brings his or her own property to the marriage and does not make a transfer of the asset or any portion of it to the spouse then that asset remains separate property. Upon dissolution of the marriage the asset is still owned by the original owner. Unless the asset, or a portion of it, is awarded as lump sum alimony then the court must recognize the proper ownership of the property and not take it from the owner. Although the trial judge said the wife "contributed to the welfare of the . husband and to the improvement of the assets owned by him during the time of the marriage" that is not a proper basis upon which to award an ownership interest in all of his property. To compound and confuse the matter the trial judge made no specific finding or judgment concerning what particular asset she improved nor how she acquired a special equity. Nor did he decide the amount of the special equity. The judgment merely says:
⅜
4. That the Respondent-Wife/Counter Petitioner has contributed to the welfare of the Petitioner-Husband and to the improvement of the assets owned by him during the time of the marriage and that she is entitled to a special equity as a result of this contribution.
5. That the Petitioner-Husband shall pay directly to the Respondent-Wife the sum of $4,500.00, which shall include and be a complete settlement of all claims for alimony of any kind whatsoever, costs of this action and attorney's fees.
6. The aforesaid sum shall be paid to the attorney for Respondent-Wife, David M. Porter, for the deduction of costs and attorney's fees and distributed to the Respondent-Wife, CONNIE SUE HORTON. This amount shall be paid upon execution and rendition of this Judgment.
Where the parties are equally capable of securing competent counsel, neither should be required to pay the attorney's fees for the other. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Peak v. Peak, 411 So.2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wenz v. Collings, 417 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The judgment is affirmed in all respects except that portion which takes from the husband and gives to the wife and her attorney $4,500.00. That portion is reversed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
ORFINGER, C.J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.