Court Opinion

ID: 9909483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 16:04:17.224322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:29.011534
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                      Opinion filed December 13, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1464
                       Lower Tribunal No. 17-21846
                          ________________

                      Leonard Brandon Pringle,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         Ingrid Esther Pringle,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason E.
Dimitris, Judge.

      Sandy T. Fox, P.A., and Sandy T. Fox and Alisha B. Savani, for
appellant.

      Florida Appeals, and Erin Pogue Newell and Shannon McLin, B.C.S.
(Orlando), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

     LOGUE, C.J.

     Former Husband, Leonard Brandon Pringle, appeals the trial court’s

post-judgment orders unequally distributing the mortgage debt he and his
Former Wife, Ingrid Esther Pringle, shared on their marital home. He argues

the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.

      This is not the first time this issue has been before us. The trial court

entered the orders on appeal pursuant to our prior opinion. Pringle v. Pringle,

333 So. 3d 757, 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). In this opinion, we reviewed the

Former Husband’s appeal of the final judgment, which challenged the trial

court’s distribution of the mortgage debt. Id. However, we held that we could

not review this issue because the trial court did not actually decide it. Id. So,

we remanded on this issue and instructed the trial court to rule on it. Id.

      The trial court did so and entered orders distributing the entire

mortgage debt to the Former Husband. The Former Husband now appeals

these orders, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it

distributed the entire mortgage debt to him. We are not persuaded.

      The law in this area is clear, the distribution of a martial asset or liability

does not have to be equal. While there is a statutory presumption in favor of

equal distribution, distribution is ultimately a discretionary function of the trial

court, based on its evaluation of the factors in § 61.075(1), Florida Statutes.

      Although the discretion of the trial court in disposing of marital
      property is tempered by Florida's statutory presumption in favor
      of equal distribution, the law recognizes there are certain
      instances where “there is a justification for unequal distribution
      based on all the relevant factors.” In accord with these principles,

                                         2
      “a trial court need not equalize the financial position of the
      parties” but must “ensure that neither spouse passes
      automatically from misfortune to prosperity or from prosperity to
      misfortune.”

Corrales v. Corrales, 320 So. 3d 217, 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting §

61.075(1), Fla. Stat. and Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1204

(Fla. 1980)).

      In its judgment, the trial court made lengthy findings pursuant to §

61.075(1), Florida Statutes, detailing the intentional conduct of the Former

Husband that resulted in its decision to unequally distribute the interests in

the marital home.1 In particular, it mentions the Former Husband ousting the

Former Wife from the home, resulting in her having to pay for a new place to

live while also depriving her of the opportunity to collect rent from the third

parties the Former Husband unilaterally allowed to live there after she left.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that these

actions justified an unequal distribution.

      Affirmed.

1
   At a hearing on remand, the trial court explained that its reasons for
unequally distributing the marital home’s mortgage debt were the same as
its reasons for unequally distributing the home’s equity. These reasons were
laid out in the trial court’s final judgment.

                                       3