Summary
The Florida Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the trial court's equitable distribution ruling, holding that under section 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes, the passive appreciation of a nonmarital advanced inheritance invested using a "buy-and-hold" mutual fund strategy did not constitute a marital asset. The court found that merely researching and selecting mutual funds, without active trading, does not amount to the "efforts of either party" required to transform passive appreciation into a marital asset, consistent with Oxley v. Oxley, Doerr v. Doerr, and Steele v. Steele, and distinguishable from Chapman v. Chapman where active trading occurred. The burden was on the former husband to prove marital efforts enhanced the asset, and the appreciation was attributable to fund managers and market forces, not the parties' actions.
Holdings
- The appreciation on the former wife's nonmarital advanced inheritance was not a marital asset because neither party's efforts contributed to the appreciation within the meaning of section 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2020).
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court erred by equitably distributing, as a marital asset, the appreciation on the former wife's nonmarital advanced inheritance under section 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2020).
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (6)
- Oxley v. Oxley, 695 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(applied)
- Doerr v. Doerr, 751 So.2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(applied)
- Steele v. Steele, 945 So.2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(applied)
- Chapman v. Chapman, 866 So.2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(distinguished_from)
- Palmer v. Palmer, 316 So.3d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)(applied)
- Gromet v. Jensen, 201 So.3d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.