Bell v. Bell, 502007DR002692XXXXSB
Case No. 4D10-5122

This was a divorce case with several contested issues regarding the parties’ marital and non-marital assets. Our client, the former wife, appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband cross-appealed. Our client’s main issues were (1) the trial court’s failure to award her half of the husband’s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2) the trial court’s failure to make factual findings before denying her request for bridge-the-gap alimony.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) agreed with our position that the trial court had erred in failing to award our client half of the husband’s accounts receivable. The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded. On remand to the trial court, the former husband took the position that the issue required an evidentiary hearing to determine the new equitable distribution of the asset. We opposed the need for an evidentiary hearing, arguing that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because the Fourth DCA clearly stated in its written opinion that the value of the omitted account receivable was $660,611 based on undisputed testimony from the trial.

The trial court agreed and entered an order denying the former husband’s demand for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court received proposed Final Judgments from the parties. This preserved the positive result we achieved in the appellate court for our client and saved her the additional attorney’s fees associated with a lengthy evidentiary hearing in the trial court after remand.

Preudhomme v. Bailey
Case No. 4D10-3262

Our firm challenged the trial court’s final judgment on behalf of a former wife claiming that the lower court erred in dividing the assets, calculating income of the husband, awarding an inadequate amount of alimony, calculating child support payable by the wife, and including overly restrictive parenting provisions. The case involved a highly contentious divorce of a sixteen year marriage involving three minor children. Although the former wife had a CPA license, she stayed at home with the minor children. The former husband traded and managed properties.

In the final judgment, the lower court commented that much of the evidence was conflicting and the facts were disputed. The court then divided the various assets and awarded sole parental responsibility with the father. In addition, the court significantly prohibited the former wife from petitioning for modification of the parenting plan unless she completed: (1) fifty-two weeks of individual psychological therapy; (2) another twenty-six weeks of joint psychological therapy with the children; (3) five additional sessions on child discipline; and (4) two eight-week sessions in parental effectiveness training.

On Appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Appellate Court determined that the lower court erred in calculating stock due to the wife based upon the lower court’s failure to make factual findings as to whether the initial stock was purchased or a gift. Furthermore, the lower court’s findings regarding numerous bonus shares of stock were not supported by competent substantial evidence.

The Court also found that the lower court erred by refusing to determine whether real property owned by the former husband in Jamaica was marital or non-marital property. Specifically, section 61.075(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, requires the court to make clear identification of marital and non-marital assets. Therefore, the lower court could not refuse to address the property in Jamaica, as it did here.

Finally, the Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in parts of the parenting plan as there was no competent substantial evidence to support the specific type and length of therapy ordered by the court for the former wife. Furthermore, there was no evidence to support the specific time restrictions on the former wife’s ability to petition for modification of the parenting plan which severely impacted her ability to parent her children. Thus, the lower court could not arbitrarily determine that the therapy must last a specific time before the former wife could request to spend more time with her children.

Bell v. Bell

This was a divorce case involving several issues regarding the parties’ marital and non-marital assets. Our client appealed and the opposing party cross appealed. Our client’s main issues were the trial court’s failure to (1) award her half of the husband’s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2) make factual findings before denying her request for bridge-the-gap alimony.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court erred in failing to award our client half of the husband’s accounts receivable. It reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court make specific written findings regarding the assets. Likewise, Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to make the appropriate findings regarding our client’s request for bridge-the-gap-alimony, and it also reversed on that point. Our client was awarded entitlement to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. Shortly thereafter, the opposing party filed a motion for rehearing and/or clarification to which our client responded. In agreement with our response, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the opposing party’s request for rehearing and/or clarification.

Konz v. Konz, 4D09-4454
June 1, 2011

The Fourth District addressed an issue of valuation regarding a marital residence during a dissolution of marriage proceeding.  At the time of the marriage, appellant, husband owned a home that had a fair market value of $380,000 with a $25,000 mortgage.  During the marriage, the home was demolished and the mortgage was paid off.  The parties built a new home on the same lot, with a fair market value of $520,000.  In the equitable distribution, the trial court treated the entire home as a marital asset and equally divided the equity.

On appeal, the husband argued that the trial court failed to award him a portion of the value of the home as a nonmarital asset. The Fourth District disagreed, holding that the former husband failed to meet his burden to establish the value of the nonmarital portion of the marital home.  See Jahnke v. Jahnke, 804 So.2d 513, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).  There was no evidence of the value of the lot by itself, which would have qualified as the nonmarital portion of the value of the marital home, when the original house was torn down.  The Fourth District noted that the failure to prove the nonmarital value of the lot distinguished the case from Oldham v. Oldham, 683 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The Fourth District affirmed the equal equity distribution of the marital residence.