Nancy Smith Schroll, Former Wife v. Stephen B. Schroll, Former Husband
227 So. 3d 232
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Marriage of 32 years; parties owned Storkland (retail baby store) and amassed just over $2 million in marital assets (commercial building, inventory, investment/retirement accounts, personalty).
- Husband (Stephen) managed the business and during the dissolution used marital funds to pay living expenses, attorneys’ fees, vehicles, moving costs, mortgage payoff, and transfers to daughters; some accounts were reduced or exhausted during litigation.
- Trial court adopted the wife’s (Nancy) equitable-distribution schedule valuing assets as of the date of filing, awarded each party roughly equal net assets (after an amendment), found no dissipation, denied meaningful alimony, and ordered each to bear their own fees; later amended to $1/month nominal permanent alimony and corrected math on the schedule.
- Wife appealed claiming inadequate permanent alimony and denial of attorney’s fees; husband cross-appealed valuation and distribution of marital assets/liabilities.
- The appellate court reversed in part and remanded to (1) exclude marital funds dissipated for marital purposes from valuations unless intentional dissipation found, (2) reassess valuation dates for investments that fell in value, (3) account for Storkland’s accounts payable, and (4) revisit alimony and fees with explicit findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schroll—wife) | Defendant's Argument (Schroll—husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of money market and brokerage accounts | Court should value accounts as of filing; include balances in distribution | Husband: funds were spent for marital purposes during litigation and thus should not be included at filing values absent a finding of dissipation | Reversed as to valuing depleted accounts at filing date; court abused discretion—must exclude funds spent for marital purposes unless intentional dissipation is found |
| Valuation date for investment accounts that declined passively | Wife: valuation at filing ok | Husband: passive market declines between filing and final hearing should be considered; court must explain chosen valuation date | Reversed/remanded to justify valuation date and account for passive market changes when appropriate |
| Business assets and liabilities (Storkland) | Wife: court appropriately allocated inventory/account values | Husband: court ignored business debts/accounts payable and market value evidence and thus misvalued business interest | Remanded: court should include Storkland’s accounts payable as marital liabilities; lack of fair-market-value evidence from parties excuses trial court’s omission of a business FMV finding but distribution must be revised if liability accounting changes totals |
| Alimony (permanent periodic) | Wife: long-term marriage presumption for permanent alimony applies; trial court failed to make requisite findings and wrongly awarded only nominal alimony | Husband: wife received substantial liquid and retirement assets and thus lacks need; husband’s ability to pay disputed | Remanded: trial court must reassess need and ability with explicit findings (Broemer presumption), consider all §61.08 factors, and determine proper alimony (nominal award OK only if inability to pay shown) |
| Attorney’s fees | Wife: entitled to fees given unequal result/need for fees at trial | Husband: fees properly denied pending redistribution/alimony outcome | Remanded: fee entitlement to be reconsidered after equitable distribution and alimony recalculation under §61.16 standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Boutwell v. Adams, 920 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA) (standard of review for equitable distribution)
- Watson v. Watson, 124 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA) (equal distribution default and need for findings when unequal)
- Ballard v. Ballard, 158 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA) (diminished sums used for marital purposes should not be included unless intentional dissipation found)
- Zvida v. Zvida, 103 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA) (same principle re: dissipated sums)
- Winder v. Winder, 152 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA) (nominal alimony preserves jurisdiction when payor lacks present ability)
- Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA) (need specific finding of intentional dissipation to include dissipated funds)
- Walker v. Walker, 85 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA) (same)
- Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA) (trial court must explain valuation date and account for passive appreciation/decline)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA) (party who presents no proof of value cannot later complain about lack of FMV finding)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.) (trial court must make findings on need and ability regarding alimony)
- Broemer v. Broemer, 109 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA) (rebuttable presumption of permanent alimony in long-term marriages and requirement to address presumption)