Bell v. Bell
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12502
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- The parties married January 19, 1997; petition for dissolution filed February 28, 2007; dissolution hearings occurred in September 2009.
- Husband testified to 50% ownership in Precision Time Systems, Inc. and Royce Parking Control Systems; wife’s expert valued assets and identified receivables.
- Valuation as of February 28, 2007: Precision approximately $2,731,000; Royce stock $647,000; Royce had negative book value but positive FMV.
- Receivables from Royce and Bell Brothers noted as $275,283 and $385,328 respectively, totaling $660,611, assets to be accounted by husband to wife.
- Husband inherited his mother’s home; mortgage payments were made during the marriage with wife aware; amount $29,975 from sale proceeds deemed marital.
- Ford Explorer was traded via Cash for Clunkers before the hearings; car no longer existed at dissolution; dispute over inclusion as marital asset.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $660,611 notes receivable must be included in equalization | Bell argues notes are marital assets to be listed and distributed. | Bell contends notes are receivables from entities, ultimately owed by husband, not already valued elsewhere. | Remand for specific findings on receivables; include $660,611 in distribution. |
| Bridge-the-gap alimony and required factual findings | Bell seeks bridge-the-gap alimony due to gray-area marriage. | Bell denies need for bridge-the-gap or rehabilitative plan. | Reversed and remanded for appropriate findings on alimony factors. |
| Taxable/nonmarital status of the mother's home and proceeds | Bequest/inheritance should be marital due to mortgage payments during marriage. | Property was inherited; nonmarital asset should be treated accordingly. | Remand to reclassify the home and proceeds as nonmarital; correct distribution. |
| Ford Explorer valuation and inclusion as marital asset | Explorer had value to be divided. | Explorer no longer exists; value should not be included. | Remand; exclude Explorer value as it was traded prior to dissolution. |
| Reservation of jurisdiction over attorney's fees | Wife argues for reserved jurisdiction on attorney's fees. | Husband contends no reservation required. | Affirmed (trial court's handling of attorney's fees not reversed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Crockett v. Crockett, 708 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (requires specific findings for marital assets and liabilities)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 927 So.2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (gray-area alimony requires consideration of statutory factors)
- Jaffy v. Jaffy, 965 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (no presumption in alimony based on length; factors must be considered)
- Cohen v. Cohen, 39 So.3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (bridge-the-gap alimony principles and transitional purpose)
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (requirement to consider all alimony factors)
- Geddes v. Geddes, 530 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1988) (alimony factors and discretionary review framework)
- Briscoe v. Briscoe, Not provided in excerpt; see surrounding discussion (Not provided) (discusses receivables as marital assets)
- Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 597 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (receivables may be marital assets)
- Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (abuse of discretion standard in equitable distribution)
- Mondello v. Torres, 47 So.3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (de novo review of marital vs nonmarital determinations)