Jordan v. Jordan
127 So. 3d 794
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Former Husband Jordan and Former Wife Laura Jordan Were married in 1992 and had two children.
- Former Husband operated a chiropractic private practice in a building deeded to him before marriage; Wife coordinated extensive renovations to the building during the marriage.
- In 2001, Husband formed Jordan Realty, LLC and transferred the building to it; building was sold during the marriage, proceeds invested in family ventures including a salon.
- Wife aided in subsequent investments and used proceeds for household expenses; dissolution petition filed January 2011.
- Trial court adopted Wife’s proposed equitable distribution (ED) schedule; final judgment attached the ED schedule with some changes.
- On appeal, the court found the ED schedule contained unsupported valuations and errors, and reversed the ED award, remanding for correction and reconsideration of related orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the ED valuations unsupported and the schedule erroneous? | Jordan contends the ED schedule is incompletely supported and contains errors. | Jordan argues the ED schedule reflects intended distributions despite some clerical issues. | Yes; ED must be reversed and remanded for correct valuations. |
| Should Jordan Realty be deemed a marital asset and accounted for on remand? | Jordan argues Jordan Realty is nonmarital. | Jordan contends Wife’s improvements and proceeds transformed it into a marital asset. | Marital asset; must be accounted for on remand. |
| Is the valuation date of petition filing appropriate for determining marital assets? | Value should be determined differently from filing date. | Filing date is appropriate per § 61.075(7). | Appropriate to value as of filing date. |
| Must other orders derived from the ED schedule (home sale, alimony, child support, attorney’s fees) be reconsidered on remand? | Those orders are built on an erroneous ED and require reconsideration. | Reconsideration should follow from corrected ED figures. | Yes; remand to reconsider all related orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (abuse of discretion standard; findings must be supported by competent evidence)
- McDonald v. McDonald, 868 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 1979) (final judgments must be supported by competent substantial evidence)
- Konz v. Konz, 63 So.3d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (reversing for consideration when evidence does not support findings)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 557 So.2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (express factual findings not required if record supports conclusions)
- Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So.2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (where valuation is unsupported, entire distribution scheme may be reversed)
- Mondello v. Torres, 47 So.3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (asset characterization de novo; marital asset determinations reviewed anew)