Capote v. Capote
117 So. 3d 1153
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mitsu Capote and Frank Capote married in 1989 in California; separated in 2008.
- Husband moved to Tampa in 1990, bought A1 Capote’s Dry Cleaning, Inc.; parties relocated to Tampa.
- They acquired Gulf Boulevard and Bradford Avenue Properties during the marriage; each owned 50% interest.
- Final judgment allocated full value and full mortgage amounts to husband, then on rehearing reduced value but not mortgage, creating error.
- Disputes centered on whether A1 Capote’s Cleaners is a marital asset and the valuation and distribution of related assets and debts.
- Court remands to correct misallocations, miscalculations, and conflicting provisions related to several items.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct mortgage and tax allocations on Gulf/Bradford | Capote seeks reduction of each property's mortgage by half. | Trial court erred by not reducing both mortgage and tax obligations proportionally. | Remand to correct half-mortgage and tax allocations. |
| A1 Capote’s Cleaners as marital asset | Father contributed $75,000 and had 50% interest per oral agreement; business premarital but commingling may affect marital status. | No documented interest; gift; sole ownership; rightful marital characterization. | Affirm on marital asset characterization; no clear error. |
| Valuation and correction of business value | Court erred in total valuation and there is miscalculation. | Valuation supported by evidence; minor discrepancy acknowledged. | Affirm valuation; remand to correct $233 discrepancy. |
| Insurance proceeds dissipation | Proceeds were used by spending spouse, should be assigned accordingly. | No contrary argument provided. | Affirm dissipation ruling; assign proceeds as misconduct-based. |
| Villa loan repayment allocation | Final judgment inconsistent about wife’s share of loan repayment. | Clarify distribution to avoid double counting. | Remand to remove conflicting provision regarding Villa loan repayment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaty v. Gribble, 652 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (valuation evidence admissible when supported by testimony)
- Tradler v. Tradler, 100 So.3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (de novo review for marital vs. nonmarital character)
- Pfrengle v. Pfrengle, 976 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (currency fungibility; commingling destroys separate character)
- Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (commingling evidence of asset characterization)