Bateh v. Bateh
98 So. 3d 750
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant, Former Wife, appeals from a dissolution decree; the court affirmed in part but reversed on disposition of several assets.
- The trial court addressed dissipation of marital assets and relied on Roth and related Florida authorities.
- Record shows Appellee, Former Husband, faced financial distress in his dental practice but funded the family's lifestyle during prosperous periods.
- Appellee amassed more than $2 million in investment assets subject to equitable distribution; some funds were used for an interim partial distribution.
- Evidence showed both parties used practice funds to support living expenses and children’s education; later distribution affected separate property rights and final asset division.
- The trial court failed to value certain assets (furnishings, a vehicle) and to determine alimony findings consistent with statutory factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dissipation evidence and ruling on marital assets | Roth-based dissipation not properly found | Trial court could credit expenditures as legitimate living costs | No abuse of discretion; no clear dissipation found |
| Unaddressed furnishings acquired with marital funds | ~$30,000 furnishings not accounted for | Court did not value/allocate these assets | Reversed and remanded to identify, value, distribute furnishings |
| Post-petition $13,000 check to brother | Check should be considered in distribution | Not properly addressed | Remanded for consideration in equitable distribution |
| Vehicle value and distribution | Trial court failed to value the Hyundai | Children possess vehicle; distribution not clarified | Reversed as to vehicle valuation and distribution; must value and allocate |
| Alimony findings consistent with standard of living | Need for permanent alimony; court erred by not determining need | Husband unable to pay more than nominal alimony | Remanded to make findings on appellant’s alimony need and payer’s ability |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (dissipation may affect equitable distribution when misconduct occurred)
- Demont v. Demont, 67 So.3d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (abuse of discretion review for dissipation claims)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976) (trial court credibility and weighing evidence; appellate reevaluation not allowed)
- Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So.3d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (need-based alimony findings required when appropriate)
- Tummings v. Francois, 82 So.3d 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (expenditures during dissolution may be for living expenses)
- Steedman v. Chenoweth, 27 So.3d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (expense considerations during dissolution)
- Annas v. Annas, 29 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (standard of living as a factor in alimony)