Harris v. Harris
205 So. 3d 873
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- George C. Harris (Former Husband) appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered in favor of Anita Harris (Former Wife).
- Former Wife owned a house purchased before the marriage; the couple lived there during the marriage and used marital funds for some mortgage payments and improvements (roof, A/C, appliances, garage remodel).
- Former Wife lived with her adult daughter (from another relationship) and minor grandson; Former Wife paid all household expenses and provided voluntary financial support to them while the daughter was unemployed.
- Trial court awarded Former Wife sole ownership of the house but treated portions of the house's appreciated value as marital and allocated half of that marital portion to each party for equitable distribution.
- Trial court awarded alimony to Former Wife based on a statement of expenses that included amounts attributable to her voluntary support of her daughter and grandson.
- Former Husband appealed, arguing (1) the alimony award improperly considered voluntary support payments to non-party family members, and (2) the marital portion of house appreciation was incorrectly treated in the equitable distribution calculation given Former Wife’s sole ownership of the home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may include Former Wife’s voluntary support of her adult daughter and minor grandson in calculating her need for alimony | Former Wife contends her recorded household expenses reflect her actual need and support obligation | Former Husband argues those voluntary payments are not Former Wife’s alimony-eligible needs because they benefit non-parties and should not be counted | Reversed: court erred to include voluntary support for non-party daughter/grandson in calculating alimony; remand to determine Former Wife’s individual need based on competent substantial evidence |
| Whether the marital portion of passive appreciation of a pre-marital home must be fully credited to the homeowner awarded sole ownership or split for equalization | Former Wife implicitly relied on trial court’s limited marital-credit treatment while keeping sole ownership of the home | Former Husband argued he should receive equitable credit/payments for the marital portion because marital funds and efforts contributed to appreciation | Reversed: trial court must either (a) order homeowner to pay nonowner one-half of the marital portion of appreciation, or (b) credit the homeowner with the entire marital portion when awarding sole ownership; remand to adjust equalizing payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinones v. Quinones, 84 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA) (trial court may not consider voluntary payments to nonparty adult child as an expense when calculating alimony)
- Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA) (alimony awards must be supported by competent substantial evidence of need)
- Demont v. Demont, 67 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA) (party seeking alimony bears the burden of proof)
- Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So. 3d 867 (Fla.) (owner-spouse cannot retain full benefit of passive appreciation when nonowner spouse contributed; nonowner entitled to one-half of passive appreciation)