Court Opinion

ID: 9371127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:04:45.41447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.795283
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                              FOURTH DISTRICT

                          DANIELA SOUTO COE,
                               Appellant,

                                      v.

                   REINIER NICOLAAS RAUTENBERG,
                              Appellee.

                               No. 4D22-510

                            [February 15, 2023]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Scott R. Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-DR-002714-
XXXX-SB.

   Nancy A. Hass of Nancy A. Hass, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

   No appearance for appellee.

DAMOORGIAN, J.

    Daniela Souto Coe (“Former Wife”) appeals the final judgment
dissolving her marriage to Reinier Nicolaas Rautenberg (“Former
Husband”). On appeal, Former Wife argues the trial court erred in:
(1) ordering a bi-weekly rotating timesharing schedule; (2) declining to set
a holiday or school break schedule; (3) distributing the marital Bitcoin
assets and liabilities; (4) failing to properly address Former Wife’s pending
motions; and (5) awarding child support without making certain findings.
We affirm on the first issue without further comment. For the reasons
discussed below, we reverse on the remaining issues.

    The parties were married in 2005 and have two children. Former Wife
filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in March 2017, requesting
therein an award of child support “retroactive to the date when the parties
last resided together or the last 24 months prior to the filing of the Petition
for Dissolution of Marriage.” The petition also requested the trial court
equitably distribute the parties’ marital assets which, at the time,
primarily consisted of 10 Bitcoins.
   During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, the trial court
entered an agreed order for temporary relief requiring Former Husband to
pay $720 per month in temporary child support. The agreed order also
provided as follows regarding retroactive child support: “The parties agree
to the retroactive period of January 2016 through December 2017, and
that the amount of retroactive child support . . . due from Husband to Wife
during this period is reserved until further agreement of the parties or
Court order.”

   Former Husband did not comply with the temporary child support
order, prompting Former Wife to file a motion for contempt and for past
due child support. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an agreed
order awarding Former Wife $12,704.07 in past due child support for the
period of January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019. The agreed order
also allowed Former Wife to “convert the equivalent portion of marital
Bitcoins in her possession . . . as the Husband’s payment of the past due
child support.” At that time, $12,704.07 was the equivalent of 1.2
Bitcoins.

   The matter was ultimately set for a final hearing. Prior to the final
hearing, Former Wife filed several motions, three of which are relevant to
this appeal. First, Former Wife moved for child support retroactive to the
date when the parties no longer resided together in the same household.
Second, Former Wife moved for past due child support for the period of
January 2020 through November 2021. Third, Former Wife moved for
reimbursement of the $1,851.20 she spent to recover the Bitcoin asset. 1

    The matter proceeded to a final hearing as scheduled, with both parties
appearing pro se. At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court advised
the parties “we’re going to start off with [Former Wife’s] motions” and asked
that the parties “save your objections for your response.” Consistent with
her motions, Former Wife requested past due child support for “2020 and
2021” as well as retroactive child support for the “two years prior” to the
filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. After hearing argument
from Former Husband, the trial court asked Former Wife if she had “any
final word on your motion,” to which Former Wife reiterated her position
that she was seeking retroactive support “from the date of filing to two
years, which is what the statute allows.” The trial court then stated it
would take the issue under advisement, and proceeded to address the
equitable distribution and timesharing issues.

1  The hard drive containing the Bitcoins was damaged at some point, and
Former Wife hired a company to recover the data.

                                     2
   As to equitable distribution of the Bitcoin asset, the parties agreed the
marital estate originally consisted of 10 Bitcoins. Both parties also agreed
that Former Husband’s original share of the asset (5 Bitcoins) had since
been reduced by 1.2 Bitcoins (as payment for past due child support), thus
leaving Former Husband with 3.8 Bitcoins as his equitable share of the
asset. Former Wife also requested, consistent with her motion, that
Former Husband reimburse her half of the cost to recover the Bitcoin hard
drive. Notably, Former Husband told the trial court “[i]t was never an
issue” when asked if he had “an objection to paying half the cost.”

   Following the hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment of
dissolution of marriage wherein it did the following. First, the trial court
ordered a bi-weekly rotating timesharing schedule. With the exception of
Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, the trial court declined to set a holiday or
school break timesharing schedule. Instead, the final judgment provided
as follows: “Requests to alter this schedule may be temporarily
accomplished by the parties only through a prior written agreement of the
party seeking to temporarily modify the alternating schedule.”

    Second, the trial court awarded Former Wife $22,954.75 in past due
child support for the period of December 31, 2019, through February 1,
2022. The final judgment did not address Former Wife’s motion for child
support retroactive to the date when the parties no longer resided together
in the same household.

   Third, the trial court equitably distributed the Bitcoin asset as follows:

      The [parties] both testified that their marital estate assets
      originally consisted of 10 marital Bitcoins . . . .

      ....

      The 1.2 Bitcoins listed by the Wife as a non-marital asset will
      remain a non-marital asset of the Wife. The remaining 8.8
      Bitcoins are determined to be marital property, each party
      initially entitled to 4.4 Bitcoins. However, before distribution
      to the Husband, the [Wife] is entitled to a set-off [of]
      $22,954.75, before the distribution of the 4.4 bitcoins from
      the [Wife] to the [Husband].

The final judgment did not mention Former Husband reimbursing Former
Wife for half the cost of recovering the Bitcoin hard drive.

                                     3
   Finally, the trial court ordered Former Wife to pay child support in the
amount of $402.80 per month for both children. Neither the final
judgment nor the child support guidelines worksheet attached thereto
stated the amount of child support that would be owed for the youngest
child after the eldest child was no longer entitled to receive support.

    The standard of review regarding equitable distribution, timesharing,
and child support is abuse of discretion. See O’Neill v. O’Neill, 305 So. 3d
551, 553–54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (equitable distribution and child
support); Krift v. Obenour, 152 So. 3d 645, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
(timesharing). To the extent Former Wife argues the trial court violated
her right to due process, we apply the de novo standard. Dobson v. U.S.
Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 217 So. 3d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

    Former Wife first argues the trial court erred in failing to set a holiday
and school break timesharing schedule. We agree. Despite recognizing at
the hearing that the parties had an acrimonious parenting relationship,
the trial court declined to set a holiday or school break timesharing
schedule in the final judgment.          Instead, the trial court left the
responsibility of setting such a schedule to the parties. This was error.
See Blackburn v. Blackburn, 103 So. 3d 941, 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[T]he
magistrate erroneously declined to set a holiday time-sharing schedule as
requested. As a result, the parties who already have exhibited animosity
toward one another are left with the responsibility of setting a schedule by
which they can share time with the children on major holidays.”); Mills v.
Johnson, 147 So. 3d 1023, 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“In light of the fact
that the magistrate determined that the parties have a ‘contentious
parenting relationship,’ it seems particularly imperative for the magistrate
to recommend a holiday time-sharing schedule.”). We accordingly reverse
on this issue and remand for the trial court to set a holiday and school
break timesharing schedule.

   Former Wife next argues the trial court miscalculated the number of
marital Bitcoins that were subject to equitable distribution. Specifically,
she argues that instead of deducting the 1.2 Bitcoins—previously awarded
to Former Wife as payment for past due child support—from the original
10 marital Bitcoins and then equally distributing the remaining 8.8
Bitcoins, the trial court should have deducted the 1.2 Bitcoins from
Former Husband’s original share of 5 Bitcoins, thus leaving Former
Husband with 3.8 Bitcoins, not 4.4 Bitcoins. Former Wife further argues
the trial court erred in not requiring Former Husband to reimburse her for
half the cost of recovering the Bitcoin hard drive. We agree.

                                      4
    By deducting the 1.2 Bitcoins from the original 10 marital Bitcoins and
then dividing the remaining 8.8 Bitcoins, the trial court improperly
diminished Former Wife’s equitable distribution of the Bitcoin asset. This
is because Former Wife had already been awarded the 1.2 Bitcoins from
Former Husband’s share of the asset as payment for past due child
support. In other words, Former Husband’s original marital share
(5 Bitcoins) had already been reduced to 3.8 Bitcoins at the time of the
final hearing. Therefore, the trial court should have awarded Former Wife
her original share of the asset (5 Bitcoins) and Former Husband 3.8
Bitcoins. The trial court further erred in not requiring Former Husband
to reimburse Former Wife for half the cost of recovering the Bitcoin hard
drive, especially considering Former Husband agreed to reimbursing half
of the cost at the final hearing. We accordingly reverse on this issue and
remand with instructions that the trial court award Former Wife 5 Bitcoins
and Former Husband 3.8 Bitcoins, and order Former Husband to
reimburse Former Wife half of the cost of recovering the Bitcoin hard drive.
Consistent with the final judgment, before distributing the 3.8 Bitcoins to
Former Husband, the trial court shall award Former Wife the equivalent
of $22,954.75 in Bitcoin from Former Husband’s share of the asset as
payment for past due child support.

    Former Wife next argues that by asking the parties to refrain from
objecting, the trial court “refus[ed] to permit the Wife to have each of her
Motions heard, separately, and, fully,” thereby violating her right to due
process. This, in turn, also resulted in the trial court failing to rule on
Former Wife’s motion for retroactive child support. We disagree with
Former Wife’s due process violation argument. Nonetheless, the trial court
should have ruled on Former Wife’s motion for child support retroactive to
the date when the parties did not reside together in the same household,
especially considering the order for temporary relief reflects the parties
agreed Former Husband owed retroactive child support for this period:
“The parties agree to the retroactive period of January 2016 through
December 2017, and that the amount of retroactive child support . . . due
from Husband to Wife during this period is reserved until further
agreement of the parties or Court order.” See § 61.30(17), Fla. Stat. (2022)
(“In an initial determination of child support, . . . the court has discretion
to award child support retroactive to the date when the parents did not
reside together in the same household with the child, not to exceed a
period of 24 months preceding the filing of the petition, regardless of
whether that date precedes the filing of the petition.”). We accordingly
reverse and remand for the trial court to determine the amount of
retroactive child support due from Former Husband for the period of
January 2016 through December 2017.

                                      5
   Former Wife lastly argues the trial court erred in ordering her to pay
$402.80 per month in child support for both children without stating,
in either the final judgment or the child support guidelines worksheet, the
amount of child support that will be owed for the youngest child after the
eldest child is no longer entitled to receive support. We agree. See
§ 61.13(1)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2022) (“All child support orders . . . entered on
or after October 1, 2010, must provide . . . . [a] schedule, based on the
record existing at the time of the order, stating the amount of the monthly
child support obligation for all the minor children at the time of the order
and the amount of child support that will be owed for any remaining children
after one or more of the children are no longer entitled to receive child
support . . . .” (emphasis added)). We accordingly reverse on this issue and
remand for the trial court to make the required finding.

   Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                             *         *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                       6