Ehman v. Ehman
156 So. 3d 7
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Martin Ehman appeals a final judgment dissolving his marriage to Melanie Ehman, challenging equitable distribution and alimony aspects.
- The final judgment awarded three Tierra Technologies, LLC properties to Wife, which the court deemed improper because Tierra Technologies was not a party to the dissolution.
- The case cites a Keller v. Keller-like issue where corporate property owned through a entity in which the husband held stock cannot be transferred absent joinder of the entity.
- Following a default against Husband, the Wife moved to strike pleadings and obtain a judicial default; the trial court entered the default against Husband after discovery failures and non-appearance.
- On appeal, the court notes that on remand the trial court must reconsider equitable distribution and alimony and make statutory findings required by Florida law.
- The appellate court reverses the Tierra Technologies property award, confirms the dissolution but remands for reconsideration of alimony and distribution with required statutory findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tierra Technologies assets could be awarded to Wife without joiner of the entity | Ehman argues nonparties’ assets improperly awarded. | Ehman contends court lacked jurisdiction over nonparties’ assets. | Reversed; nonparty assets improper. |
| Whether trial court failed to make statutory alimony findings | Wife argues statutory alimony findings were implied by distribution. | Ehman contends findings were not explicitly made. | Remanded; findings must be made. |
| Whether trial court failed to make asset and debt valuations | Wife asserts proper valuations were necessary for equitable distribution. | Ehman contends valuations were unnecessary or adequate. | Remanded; must make value findings. |
| Whether the trial court erred by striking pleadings and entering default | Wife argues proper response was impeded by Husband’s conduct warranting default. | Ehman asserts due process and discovery issues undermined default. | No reversible error identified in these arguments; issues preserved for remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. Keller, 521 So.2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (corporate asset not joined cannot be transferred)
- Mathes v. Mathes, 91 So.3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (trial court lacks jurisdiction over nonparties’ property)
- Minsky v. Minsky, 779 So.2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (trial court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate nonparties’ property)
- Austin v. Austin, 120 So.3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (court may value and distribute corporate stock deemed marital asset)
- Turcotte v. Turcotte, 122 So.3d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (need for statutory findings in certain family law awards)
- Patino v. Patino, 122 So.3d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (guidance on post-judgment findings and appellate review)
- Prest v. Tracy, 749 So.2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (equitable distribution may affect alimony reconsideration on remand)
- Ries v. Ries, 984 So.2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (trial court may limit evidence where default occurred without response)
- Merrigan v. Merrigan, 947 So.2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (default and discovery issues can impact trial rights)