Somasca v. Somasca
171 So. 3d 780
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Michelle (Wife) and Robert (Husband) married in 2007, separated in 2012; dissolution final judgment appealed by Wife.
- Dispute centered on equitable distribution relating to Husband’s Queens, NY building (titled nonmaritally) sold shortly before separation for $680,000.
- During the marriage marital funds reduced the building’s mortgage by $23,651.16; the trial court found no overall appreciation in the building’s value during the marriage.
- Wife sought a credit for one-half of the mortgage reduction, arguing marital funds enhanced Husband’s nonmarital equity.
- Trial court denied the credit as moot because the property did not appreciate; Wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Wife’s Argument | Husband’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether marital funds used to reduce mortgage on Husband’s nonmarital property create a marital asset | Marital payments that reduced mortgage enhanced nonmarital equity and that enhancement is marital and divisible | No entitlement because the property did not appreciate overall during the marriage, so no marital enhancement to distribute | Reversed: reduction of mortgage constituted enhancement of nonmarital equity and is a marital asset; Wife entitled to credit for half the mortgage paydown |
| Whether deposit of sale proceeds into a joint account effected a gift of half the proceeds to Wife | Wife claimed Husband gifted half by briefly depositing proceeds into joint account | Husband disputed gift characterization | Noted by court: Wife’s gift argument lacked merit and was rejected (affirmed) |
| Whether tax liability from converting Husband’s conventional IRA to Roth IRA is marital liability | Wife argued tax obligation should be treated as marital liability | Husband argued it was his nonmarital obligation | Court rejected Wife’s claim; treated tax obligation as nonmarital (no reversible error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dwyer v. Dwyer, 981 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (marital funds used to pay mortgage on nonmarital property create distributable enhancement in equity)
- Cornette v. Cornette, 704 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (marital funds reducing mortgage on nonmarital property enhance value and are marital)
- Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2010) (addresses passive market-driven appreciation of nonmarital property; distinguishable from mortgage-paydown issues)
- Ballard v. Ballard, 158 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (recognizes the rule that mortgage reductions by marital funds on nonmarital property result in marital equity)
- Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (supports that marital funds used to pay down nonmarital debt produce distributable enhancement)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (related precedent on enhancement/appreciation of nonmarital assets)
- Cole v. Roberts, 661 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (cited for the proposition that contributions can create marital interests)
- Straley v. Frank, 612 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (early recognition that marital funds applied to nonmarital property can create distributable enhancement)