Court Opinion

ID: 9414660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 15:04:52.885272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:55.270901
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed August 2, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1914
                       Lower Tribunal No. 19-23517
                          ________________

                            Irving D. Rivera,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                        Angelica Marie Rivera,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stacy D.
Glick, Judge.

      Fournier Law, PLLC, and Gena D. Fournier (Tallahassee), for
appellant.

     No appearance, for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

     HENDON, J.
        Irving D. Rivera (“Husband”) appeals from a final judgment of

dissolution of marriage and equitable distribution of marital assets. We

reverse in part and remand for recalculation of equitable distribution.

Facts

        The parties were married in 2016, and separated in 2018. They have

a minor child, born in 2017. Angelica Marie Rivera (“Wife”) filed for

dissolution of marriage in October 2019. Prior to, or during the pendency of

the dissolution action, the Husband inherited a house from his

grandmother, who died in 2013, but he did not receive control over the

house until the estate closed in 2018. The Wife was not identified on the

deed, never resided in the house, did not contribute to the house

maintenance, and there is no evidence in the record that marital funds were

used to pay down the mortgage.

        The Husband moved into the house, and because he was out of

work, the house went into foreclosure. The record shows that during the

pendency of the dissolution proceedings, the Husband was able to sell the

house, netting about $140,000. There is no evidence in the record that the

Husband commingled those funds with any marital funds. The Husband

then used the proceeds of the sale to purchase a property for his mother

and placed it in her name. He also purchased a used vehicle worth $12,500

                                      2
for his own use, after the Wife junked the Husband’s vehicle during the

pendency of the dissolution. The Husband did not declare the proceeds

from the sale of the inherited property in any financial disclosure statement

because he believed that inherited property was a non-marital asset.

      The Wife argued that she is entitled to half of the sale proceeds

because the Husband sold the property during the pendency of the

dissolution, the sale was a violation of the status quo order, and the court

should sanction the Husband by converting a non-marital asset into a

marital asset subject to equitable distribution.

      At the dissolution hearing, the trial court heard testimony from both

parties. At the end of the hearing, the trial court agreed that the inherited

property was non-marital, but concluded that once the Husband sold the

property, those proceeds and any assets purchased with those proceeds

became marital property subject to equitable distribution.1

      In making its equitable distribution findings, the trial court – among

other findings – apportioned fifty percent of the proceeds from the inherited

house to the Wife as a marital asset, as well as fifty percent of the value of

1
  The trial court also concluded that, by putting the property he purchased
for his mother in his mother’s name, the Husband was trying to evade
equitable distribution of the proceeds of the inherited house sale. We find
no substantial or competent evidence for this finding in the record.

                                       3
the used car purchased with the house sale proceeds. The Husband filed a

timely motion for rehearing alleging error in the trial court’s classification of

the value of the real property and vehicle as marital assets. The trial court

denied the motion, and the Husband appeals from the Final Judgment.

Standard of Review

      We review de novo a trial court's legal conclusion that an asset is

marital or non-marital. Smith v. Smith, 971 So. 2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA

2007); Dravis v. Dravis, 170 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reviewing

de novo a trial court's characterization of an asset as marital or non-

marital). “The standard of review of a trial court's determination of equitable

distribution is abuse of discretion.” Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736, 737

(Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629

(Fla. 4th DCA 2008)).

Analysis

      Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, requires that:

      In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and
      agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of
      marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual
      findings in the judgment or order based on competent
      substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated
      in subsection (1).

§ 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2017); Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 994 So. 2d 1157,

1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“The distribution of marital assets and liabilities

                                       4
must be supported by ‘factual findings in the judgment or order based on

competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in

[section 61.075(1)].’” (alteration in original) (quoting §61.075(3), Fla. Stat.)).

      Under Florida's equitable distribution statute, marital assets include

“[a]ssets acquired . . . during the marriage, individually by either spouse or

jointly by them.” §61.075(6)(a)(1)(a). Non-marital assets, which are not

subject to equitable distribution, include “[a]ssets acquired . . . by either

party prior to the marriage, and assets acquired . . . in exchange for such

assets . . . .” §61.075(6)(b)(1). Distefano v. Distefano, 253 So. 3d 1178,

1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Relevant to this appeal, non-marital assets also

include “assets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift,

bequest, devise or descent.” § 61.075(5)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis

added).

      In this case, the property that the Husband inherited was non-marital.

The trial court erroneously concluded that once the Husband sold the non-

marital property during the marriage or during the pendency of the

dissolution, those proceeds became marital property subject to equitable

distribution, relying on section 61.075(6)(a)(1)(a) setting forth that marital

assets include “[a]ssets acquired . . . during the marriage, individually by

either spouse or jointly by them.” Applying the same reasoning, the trial

                                        5
court concluded that the used Toyota Camry that the Husband purchased

with proceeds from sale of the non-marital house became a marital asset

because those proceeds were acquired by him during the marriage, while

the dissolution was pending, and in violation of the standing status quo

order.

     The general rule of when non-marital assets may become marital

assets was laid out in Dravis v. Dravis, 170 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA

2015):

     Non-marital assets may lose their non-marital character and
     become marital assets where, as here, they have been
     commingled with marital assets. Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So. 3d
     357, 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). This is especially true with
     respect to money because “[m]oney is fungible, and once
     commingled it loses its separate character.” Pfrengle v.
     Pfrengle, 976 So. 2d 1134, 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also
     Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
     (“Money loses its non-marital character when it is commingled
     with marital money....”).

(Emphasis added). Applying that principle, in Pinder v. Pinder, 750 So. 2d

651, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the court stated,

     The undisputed evidence showed that this money came from
     an inheritance Mrs. Pinder received from her aunt. Section
     61.075(5)(b)2. states that non-marital assets include those
     acquired separately by either party by bequest, devise or
     descent. To the extent that Mrs. Pinder withdrew money, which
     was then used for marital purposes, the withdrawn money
     became a marital asset that has been depleted. The remaining
     money, however, has never been commingled and retains its
     character as a non-marital asset.

                                    6
(emphasis added). See also Kittinger v. Kittinger, 582 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th

DCA 1991) (holding husband's 50% interest in real property inherited

during marriage was not subject to equitable distribution as it was a non-

marital asset); Distefano, 253 So. 3d at 1180 (finding that the proceeds

from a house the wife purchased prior to the marriage, but sold during the

marriage, became marital property because the former wife commingled

the sale proceeds into accounts that were used to pay expenses incurred

by her and the former husband during the marriage, transforming what was

once her personal bank account into a marital asset).

     Here, the house the Husband inherited from his grandmother did not

lose its non-marital status when he sold it, and the proceeds from the sale

of the non-marital property remained non-marital as there is no evidence in

the record that the funds were commingled in any marital account. Further,

the assets the Husband purchased with those non-marital funds are also

non-marital, as those assets were “acquired in exchange for an asset from

a bequest or a devise.” § 61.075(6)(b) 2., Fla. Stat. (2020). Therefore, the

assets obtained from the sale of the inherited property should also have

been classified as non-marital. Bell v. Bell, 68 So. 3d 321, 329 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2011).

                                     7
      Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the trial

court erred by classifying the assets obtained from selling the inherited

property as marital. As such, the trial court abused its discretion by

equitably distributing proceeds from the sale of the inherited house and the

value of any purchases made with those funds. Id.

      Accordingly, we reverse, in part, the final judgment of dissolution of

marriage relating to the equitable distribution of marital assets, and remand

with instructions for the trial court to recalculate the equitable distribution of

the parties’ assets consistent with this opinion.

      Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further

proceedings.

                                        8