Court Opinion

ID: 9903462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:36:44.113304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:18.615242
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
KAREN M. DUNKEL,

            Appellant,

v.                                          Case No. 5D23-55
                                            LT Case No. 2014-DR-2112
JAMES M. DUNKEL,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed February 28, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Duval County,
Daniel F. Wilensky, Judge.

Karen M. Dunkel, Mabank, TX, pro
se.

Christopher A. White, of Harris Guidi
Rosner, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

EVANDER, J.

      Karen M. Dunkel (“Former Wife”) appeals a supplemental final

judgment of dissolution of marriage. We conclude that the trial court abused

its discretion in distributing the parties’ marital assets and debts, but we

otherwise affirm.
      The trial court endeavored to equally divide the parties’ assets and

liabilities. It properly found that the consolidated student loan of $190,859.00

obtained for the benefit of the parties’ adult daughter and Former Husband’s

adult son from a prior marriage was a marital debt. However, the trial court

erred in requiring James M. Dunkel (“Former Husband”) to be solely

responsible for such debt and then “equalizing” the overall distribution by

reducing Former Wife’s share of certain marital funds held in escrow by

$95,429.50 (1/2 of $190,859.00) and increasing Former Husband’s share of

the escrowed funds by said amount. The trial court’s equitable distribution

scheme neglects to factor in the very real possibility that the consolidated

student loan will never be fully repaid1 (or will be repaid, in whole or in part,

by the adult children), thereby leaving Former Husband with a windfall.

      On remand, the trial court is directed to correct this error by making

both parties jointly responsible for repayment of the consolidated student

loan, and by not making the above referenced adjustment(s) to the

distribution of the escrowed marital funds.

      AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.

LAMBERT, C.J., and JAY, JJ., concur.

      1
       Indeed, there had been no payment on the student loan for several
years prior to trial.

                                        2