Michael Larry Strums, Former Husband, Continental Financial Services, LLC, Worldwide Financials, LLC and Continental Development, LLC v. Catherine Elizabeth Sturms, Former Wife
226 So. 3d 1004
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wife filed for dissolution after ~14 years of marriage; Husband is sole owner of several companies (Worldwide, Continental Development, Crude Oil) and Worldwide co-owns Financial Services with William Pierce.
- Crude Oil owned premarital deep-oil drilling rights that were sold during the marriage; proceeds flowed through Crude Oil and were loaned to Development.
- Trial court treated Crude Oil earnings ($578,000) as marital and included that amount in Husband’s adjusted cash award.
- The court also separately awarded Husband a 2014 Jaguar F-Type (valued at $75,750) purchased with Crude Oil proceeds, and awarded Wife assets titled to Financial Services (Tortuga Lot and an Ameritrade account).
- Husband appealed, arguing (1) Crude Oil’s proceeds were improperly double-counted because the Jaguar was already included in adjusted cash, and (2) the trial court erred by distributing Financial Services’ assets in full when Husband owned only 50% of that entity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crude Oil proceeds are marital (commingling) | Wife: proceeds were commingled into marital enterprises and are marital | Husband: drilling rights/proceeds were premarital and should remain nonmarital | Court: proceeds were commingled and thus marital; adjusted cash including $578,000 affirmed |
| Whether the 2014 Jaguar was double-counted | Husband: Jaguar was bought with Crude Oil funds and already included in adjusted cash; should not be separately awarded | Wife: Jaguar was a discrete asset assignable separately | Court: Error — Jaguar was counted twice; separate $75,750 credit to Husband reversed |
| Whether trial court could award Financial Services assets in full | Husband: Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Pierce’s property rights; Husband only owned 50% so only his interest is marital | Wife: (at hearing) sought only Husband’s 50% interest; trial court awarded full assets to Wife | Court: Error — evidence showed Financial Services was 50/50; court could not adjudicate Pierce’s rights and erred in awarding full assets to Wife |
| Remedy/Disposition on remand | N/A | N/A | Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of equitable distribution schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- Dravis v. Dravis, 170 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (standard for characterizing assets as marital or nonmarital)
- Pfrengle v. Pfrengle, 976 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (money is fungible and commingled funds lose separate character)
- Heinrich v. Heinrich, 609 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (nonmarital funds treated as marital when commingled)
- Capote v. Capote, 117 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (business characterization as marital where ownership evidence was lacking)
- Salituri v. Salituri, 184 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights of nonparties)