Dravis v. Dravis
170 So. 3d 849
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parties: Roberta L. Dravis (former wife, appellant) and Dean August Dravis (former husband, appellee); appeal from Polk County circuit court final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
- During marriage the wife received $78,000 in noninterspousal cash gifts from her mother; the funds were deposited into a CenterState passbook savings account that also held undisputed marital funds.
- The CenterState account (opened 2009) was initially joint, later retitled to the wife alone and then the husband was removed entirely shortly before separation—changes the husband said were made without his consent.
- At separation the CenterState account balance was $121,196; by trial the balance had been reduced to $1,887 after transfers and withdrawals (including $78,000 transferred to the wife’s mother, $12,500 used to buy an undisclosed CD, $6,000 withdrawn, and about $22,819 used for the wife’s support).
- The trial court treated the $78,000 gifts and the full $121,196 CenterState balance as marital assets subject to equitable distribution, and awarded the wife $400/month permanent periodic alimony (not made retroactive).
- On appeal the wife challenged characterization of the gifts, inclusion of dissipated funds and double-counted bank proceeds, and the absence of retroactive alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dravis) | Defendant's Argument (Dravis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether $78,000 in cash gifts from wife's mother are nonmarital | Gifts are noninterspousal and thus nonmarital under §61.075(6)(b)(2) | Gifts were commingled with marital funds and lost nonmarital character | Gifts became marital assets due to commingling; inclusion affirmed |
| 2. Whether trial court erred by including dissipated CenterState proceeds (account fell from $121,196 to $1,887) | Dissipated funds should not be included because they no longer exist | Funds dissipated by wife constituted misconduct and may be included | Reversed on this point—trial court failed to make required factual findings of misconduct; remand for recalculation and findings |
| 3. Whether proceeds from an older closed account were double-counted ($33,392) | Proceeds already transferred into CenterState and should not be counted twice | Concedes double-counting was improper | Remand: do not double-count; equitable distribution recalculated |
| 4. Whether alimony award should be retroactive to petition date | Wife sought retroactive alimony on appeal | Trial court declined; husband argues issue not preserved | Affirmed—wife did not request retroactive alimony below, issue not preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (commingling converts nonmarital funds into marital funds)
- Pfrengle v. Pfrengle, 976 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (money is fungible; commingling destroys separate character)
- Struble v. Struble, 787 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (proceeds deposited into joint account lose nonmarital character)
- Tradler v. Tradler, 100 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (trial court must make specific findings of misconduct to include dissipated assets)
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (generally error to include diminished/dissipated assets unless misconduct shown)
- Levy v. Levy, 900 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversal required where no factual finding of dissipation/misconduct)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 639 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (same)
- Cuevas v. Kelly, 873 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (issues not raised below are generally not preserved on appeal)