Macleod v. Macleod, 82 So. 3d 147

Nova Scotia cottage was inherited 25% by Former Husband and his three siblings; he withdrew funds to buy their interests, and title remained in his name.
Marital funds were used for taxes, insurance, and improvements; the couple used the cottage during the marriage.
The parties executed a post-marital agreement designating inherited assets and their use/value as protected assets, with an exception if converted to tangible assets used by Brenda and Malcolm.
Trial court held the cottage lost non-marital status because of use and improvements with marital funds, designating it as a marital asset for distribution.
On appeal, Husband argues the cottage remained protected non-marital asset; Wife argues use and expenditures caused conversion; appellate court reverses in part and remands for calculations on appreciation.
Court directs remand to determine the amount of appreciation in value due to marital funds and labor, and to reconsider the equitable distribution scheme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cottage is marital asset under the post-marital agreement	Macleod: cottage remained protected asset unless converted	Macleod: family use and marital expenditures caused conversion	Not a marital asset; remand for appreciation analysis
whether expenditures on the cottage converted non-marital asset	expenditures did not convert unless tangible asset created	expenditures and use created conversion	No conversion; require separate calculation of enhancement from martial funds
Effect on equitable distribution and need for remand	court should follow agreement governing assets and not treat cottage as marital	distribution must reflect any enhancement apportioned to marital funds	Remand for enhancement calculation and redistribution as needed

Chipman v. Chipman, 975 So.2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (contract interpretation applies to postnuptial agreements)
Jones v. Treasure, 984 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (terms of marital settlement agreements interpreted from four corners)
Martin v. Martin, 923 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (improvements to nonmarital asset may create value enhancement but not full convert asset)
Strickland v. Strickland, 670 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (enhancement in value due to marital funds tied to asset conversion doctrine)
Lakin v. Lakin, 901 So.2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (distinguishes inheritance of money from property in asset status)
Hanks v. Hanks, 553 So.2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (remand or reconsideration permissible when distribution impacted by findings)