August 7, 2024*
SSRGA recently secured reversal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the trial court used the date of the trial to value the marital home, which had risen sharply in value between the time of the parties’ separation and the date of trial.
The husband and wife got married in New York in 2000. In 2003, they decided to build a house in Florida and decided on a particular home in Palm Beach County. The husband made no financial contribution to the acquisition of the marital home. Only the wife’s credit was used to obtain the mortgage for the marital home. The wife provided all three of the payments comprising the down payment for the home with personal checks from her own individual account, and the parties never had a joint account.
Prior to the closing, the husband decided that he no longer wanted the home and wanted nothing to do with it. In fact, the husband was living with another woman in another place at the time of closing and not with the wife as a married couple. The wife still closed on the marital home in October of 2004, and she moved into it in 2005. The spouses later reconciled. The husband moved into the home and lived there from 2005 to 2014. The husband did not contribute financially to the marital home at all during this time. In 2014, the spouses separated and the husband moved out. The wife filed for divorce in 2021.
The marital home was the parties’ primary asset in the divorce. By the time of trial, the marital home had risen in value by approximately $228,000 since the time it was acquired. The husband requested that the trial court award him his equity based on the higher valuation of the home as of the date of trial, despite admitting he had not contributed financially to the marital home at all while the parties lived together or during their extended separation. The trial court denied the wife’s request for unequal distribution of the marital home and ordered equitable distribution using the value as of the date of trial. As a result, the trial court ordered the wife to pay the husband $167,490 as his share of the net equity in the home, whether by sale or refinance. The trial court also denied the wife’s request for credits and setoffs for monies paid for the marital home from the time the parties separated, or at least during the time the action was pending. The wife appealed.
SSRGA represented the wife on appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. We argued that the trial court abused its discretion in valuing the marital home as of the time of trial where the wife had paid all expenses related to the marital home since the parties’ separation and was solely responsible for the parties’ continued ownership of the marital home. We also argued that, assuming there was no error in valuation, it was an error to deny the wife’s request for post-filing credits and setoffs. Finally, we argued it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the wife’s request for all post-separation credits and setoffs.
The court of appeals agreed with SSRGA’s arguments and issued a written opinion concluding the trial court had abused its discretion in the equitable distribution. The court of appeals found that the trial court failed to make specific written findings to justify its use of the more recent valuation of the home. The court of appeals also found that the facts of the case did not justify using the more recent date to value the home. The court of appeals agreed that the trial court erred in failing to award the wife credits for monies paid since the date of separation, but its ruling that the trial court should have used the date of separation to value the marital home resolved that issue.
The court of appeals reversed the final judgment as to the valuation of the marital home. The Fourth DCA also granted the former wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees conditioned upon the trial court determining that she should be awarded fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes. That statute allows a trial court to award a party to a dissolution of marriage attorney’s fees based on a party’s need and the other party’s ability to pay.
This favorable result for our client will greatly reduce the amount she is required to pay her former husband as an equalizing payment. It will allow her to stay in the home that she worked hard for many years to obtain and maintain.
* Opinion not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.