Ter Keurst v. Ter Keurst
202 So. 3d 123
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties married in October 2009, separated in August 2012; they purchased a marital home in Odessa (purchase $450,000) with a $90,000 down payment, part-funded by a $30,000 loan against the wife's premarital 401(k). The marital home later sold for $600,000, netting $131,381.82 after debts and expenses.
- Before marriage (May 2009) the parties bought a beachfront condominium for $247,500 with a $60,000 down payment; evidence supported that the wife’s premarital earnings funded the down payment and an early principal payment. Title was initially joint tenants, later changed to tenancy by the entirety during marriage.
- Trial court awarded the wife a $30,000 “special equity” from the marital home sale proceeds and a $90,000 special equity in the condominium, resulting in unequal distributions and awarding the condominium to the wife. Each party also received $10,000 from home sale proceeds for attorney fees.
- Husband appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the trial court improperly relied on the abolished doctrine of special equity and failed to make required findings under the equitable-distribution statute. Wife cross-appealed on limited factual accounting points.
- The Second District reversed the equitable-distribution rulings as to both properties and reversed the denial of the husband’s fee request, remanding for the trial court to reapply section 61.075 procedures and reconsider fees in light of any new distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Ter Keurst (Husband) Argument | Ter Keurst (Wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could award "special equity" for premarital 401(k) contribution to marital home | Special equity abolished by 2008 statutory amendment; trial court must apply §61.075 unequal-distribution analysis | Wife asserted entitlement to compensation for premarital contribution (treated as special equity) | Reversed: special equity abolished; remand to apply §61.075(1) and make findings on statutory factors |
| Classification and distribution of beachfront condominium (marital vs nonmarital, enhancement) | Trial court failed to identify marital vs nonmarital components and improperly used special equity | Wife contended premarital contributions justify award (requested unequal distribution) | Reversed: trial court must determine whether condominium or enhancement is marital, value marital component, and distribute under §61.075 without using special equity |
| Trial court’s procedural findings and required statutory findings under §61.075 | Court failed to make the statutorily required identification, valuation, and factor-specific findings that support unequal distribution | Wife relied on trial court’s factual findings but court’s use of special equity rendered analysis ambiguous | Reversed: failure to make required findings compels remand for explicit identification, valuation, and factor-by-factor findings |
| Award of attorney’s fees to husband under §61.16 | Husband sought fees; trial court denied (noting husband received liquid assets) | Wife pointed to the $10,000 draw and distribution scheme as supporting denial | Remanded: fee decision vacated insofar as it depended on reversed distribution; trial court to reconsider fees after redistribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Carr, 554 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (prior decisions recognizing trial courts could award special equity)
- Jurasek v. Jurasek, 67 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (statutory abolition of special equity must be addressed under §61.075)
- Feger v. Feger, 850 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (trial court must address statutory factors to support unequal distribution)
- Davis v. Davis, 32 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reversal where decree lacked findings supporting unequal distribution other than special equity)
- Kyriacou v. Kyriacou, 173 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (failure to consider §61.075(1) factors is abuse of discretion)
- Austin v. Austin, 12 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (equitable distribution requires identification and valuation of significant marital assets)
- Fotinos v. Fotinos, 74 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (statutorily required findings necessary for appellate review)
- Somasca v. Somasca, 171 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (enhancement of nonmarital real property by marital funds is a marital asset)
- Furbee v. Barrow, 45 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (absence of findings complicates review and warrants reversal)
- Staton v. Staton, 710 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing in part for failure to make §61.075 findings)
- Healy v. Healy, 834 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (ambiguous orders require clarification on remand)
- Whittlesey v. Whittlesey, 971 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (fee determinations based on reversed distribution must be revisited)