Opinion
No. 1D21-1592
04-20-2022
Clark BRIGGS, Jr., Former Husband, Appellant, v. Dana BRIGGS, Former Wife, Appellee.
Stephanie A. Sussman of Sussman Family Law, PLLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Geraldine C. Hartin of Hamilton & Hartin, P.A., Fleming Island, for Appellee.
Stephanie A. Sussman of Sussman Family Law, PLLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Geraldine C. Hartin of Hamilton & Hartin, P.A., Fleming Island, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Clark Briggs, Jr., the Former Husband, appeals the trial court's amended final judgment dissolving his marriage to Dana Briggs, the Former Wife, raising three issues. We agree with the Former Husband that the trial court abused its discretion by including in his equitable distribution a $117,000 cash asset that had diminished by the time of trial. We reject his remaining arguments without discussion. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
BACKGROUND
Two days shy of their seventeen-year wedding anniversary, the Former Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and the Former Wife filed an answer and counter-petition. At the non-jury trial, the parties testified that at the time of their separation, they had $234,000 in cash in a safe deposit box that they had accumulated over the years from cash sales in their roofing business, and the Former Husband split the cash equally. During the pendency of the dissolution proceeding, the Former Husband continued to deposit his paycheck into the parties’ joint account to pay household expenses for the Former Wife and the parties’ children, and he used his $117,000 in cash to pay his own expenses, such as utility bills, rent, groceries, and attorney's fees. The trial court admitted into evidence a document the Former Husband prepared reflecting his withdrawals from the $117,000 for his expenses, totaling $89,580, and he testified that he had $27,420 of the cash asset remaining at the time of trial. The parties also testified about the Schedule K-1 distributions the Former Husband took at his discretion from the business over the past several years to pay for expenses.
In its amended final judgment, the trial court found that the parties split equally the $234,000 safe deposit box cash and that the Former Husband used his portion to pay his expenses because he provided his entire paycheck to the Former Wife to pay the household expenses for her and the children. The trial court nevertheless included the full amount of $117,000 in the Former Husband's equitable distribution, reasoning that he chose to pay his expenses with the cash instead of taking additional K-1 distributions as he had done in the previous years. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
We review the trial court's rulings on equitable distribution for an abuse of discretion. Schroll v. Schroll , 227 So. 3d 232, 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The date for determining the value of marital assets is the date the court determines is "just and equitable under the circumstances." Id. (citing § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat.). We have consistently held that it is error to include in the equitable distribution scheme sums that have been diminished during the dissolution proceedings for purposes reasonably related to the marriage. Id. at 236. "To include dissipated assets in an equitable distribution scheme, the court must make a specific finding that the dissipation resulted from intentional misconduct." Id. (concluding that the trial court erred by valuing the parties’ money market and brokerage accounts as of the filing date of the dissolution petition because the funds had been depleted for marital purposes where the husband used the funds to pay for the parties’ living expenses and attorney's fees and the court did not find any misconduct by him in the dissipation of the assets) (internal citation omitted). "Misconduct is not shown by mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves." Winder v. Winder , 152 So. 3d 836, 838–39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion by including dissipated funds in the equitable distribution scheme where it did not find any misconduct on the husband's part in using the funds and the uncontradicted evidence showed that the funds were used to pay marital expenses during the dissolution proceedings) (internal citation omitted); see also Pflanz v. Pflanz , 332 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).
Here, the trial court did not find any misconduct on the part of the Former Husband in the depletion of the $117,000 cash asset. The uncontroverted evidence showed that he used $89,580 of the $117,000 to pay marital expenses incurred during the dissolution proceeding and that he had only $27,420 remaining. Therefore, the trial court erred by including the full amount of $117,000 in the Former Husband's equitable distribution. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the equitable distribution scheme with instruction to exclude the $89,580 used for expenses during the dissolution proceeding.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the amended final judgment in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED .
Lewis, Bilbrey, and Jay, JJ., concur.