Court Reviews Grounds For Amended Final Judgments

When you begin the divorce process, there are several matters that need to be addressed. Most folks can address these matters in mediation, but sometimes, mediation breaks down and the couple must take their disagreement before a judge. You can address some matters in mediation, while leaving other matters to the judge. In the case of Mitchell v. Mitchell, 551 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) the couple was able to resolve some issues in mediation, but equitable distribution of the marital estate and attorney fees were left to the court to decide. In this article, the Tampa, FL, divorce lawyers at Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, will discuss the Mitchell case and how it applies to Florida law.

Background of the case 

In this case, the parties were married in 1980. Prior to the trial, they entered into a partially mediated settlement, which left some issues (such as equitable distribution and attorney fees) for the court to resolve. The key issue in the dispute was whether the appreciation in value of what had been their marital dwelling, which had originally been held by the husband alone, was “marital property” or “nonmarital property”. This included analysis of how mortgage debt payments and refinancing were used during the marriage.

The appeal was from both the final judgment of dissolution and an amended final judgment. The amended final judgment made modifications to the original final judgment concerning the classification of the couple’s property before the appeal.

The question then became: Whether the trial court’s classification of the passive appreciation of the husband’s non-marital real property was correct, given that marital funds had been used (via mortgage payments) to reduce debt during the marriage. In addition, whether the amended final judgment and original final judgment complied with case law in this area.

The case went to appeal.

The appeal 

In this case, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all respects. This means that both the final judgment and the amended final judgment were upheld. In other words, the valuation/classification challenged by the wife was rejected. The appreciation on the family home belonged to the husband.

The court found that the trial court properly applied precedent in determining that the “passive appreciation” was non-marital even though debt had been reduced by marital funds. Debt reduction does not necessarily always convert non-marital property appreciation to marital property unless certain conditions are met.

The court considered the mortgage payments, but held that they did not suffice to characterize the passive appreciation of the property as marital under the facts and law.

Talk to a Tampa, FL, Family Law Attorney Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, represents the interests of Tampa residents during their divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/second-district-court-of-appeal/2003/2d01-2499.html