Kaaa v. Kaaa
58 So. 3d 867
Fla.2011Background
- Katherine and Joseph Kaaa married in 1980 and lived in a Riverview home Joseph bought about six months before marriage.
- Purchase price was $36,500 with a $2,000 down payment; marital funds were used to pay the mortgage and to renovate the carport.
- Katherine was never added to the title; at dissolution in 2007, FMV was $225,000 and mortgage balance was about $12,871.
- Trial court held the home was nonmarital; it allowed an equitable distribution only for the home's enhancement value ($36,679 total).
- Second District affirmed the nonallocation of passive appreciation and certified conflict with Stevens; Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether passive appreciation of a nonmarital home encumbered by marital debt is marital assets. | Kaaa argued passive appreciation is not a marital asset. | Kaaa argued Stevens applies; but appeals argued distribution is appropriate. | Yes; passive appreciation is a marital asset when marital funds service the debt. |
| What framework governs calculating and allocating passive appreciation. | Stevens methodology should apply. | Mitchell framework should apply. | Adopt Stevens framework for determining and allocating passive appreciation. |
| What specific findings must the trial court make to award passive appreciation. | Show marital funds paid mortgage and nonowner contributions affected appreciation. | Findings need not detail proportional contributions. | Trial court must find marital funds paid the mortgage and nonowner contributions affected appreciation, and quantify the share. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. Stevens, 651 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (ownership of nonmarital asset and mortgage payments affect distribution of passive appreciation)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (applies conflicting precedent on passive appreciation)
- Martin v. Martin, 923 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (nonmarital asset enhancements by marital funds affect equity)
- Sanders v. Sanders, 547 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (marital funds can finance nonmarital asset improvements)