Tradler v. Tradler
100 So. 3d 735
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Wife filed for dissolution after a 17-year marriage; there is a daughter born in 1995.
- Assets include Campbell pension, Fidelity Rollover IRA, eight Wachovia CDs, Tropicana Credit Union account, and gift checks from Husband's mother.
- Trial court intended equal distribution; amended final judgment issued November 22, 2010, with equalizer payment to Wife.
- Discrepancies exist between Exhibit A, asset values, and the amended judgment; lack of a coherent distribution worksheet.
- Husband was unemployed at trial; counsel for both sides presented forensic accounting testimony; tax consequences debated.
- Court reverses equitable distribution portion and remands for new distribution; nominal alimony to Wife affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Campbell pension: marital vs nonmarital split | Tradler: nonmarital portion should be identified and allocated to Husband. | Tradler: court should exclude nonmarital portion or properly allocate it. | Remand for explicit marital/nonmarital division. |
| Tax consequences of retirement assets in distribution | Tax penalties should be considered; evidence supports tax impact. | Tax impact not needed if assets not cashed; no penalty concern. | Remand to consider tax consequences. |
| Dissipation of assets and misconduct finding | Assets dissipated during proceedings should be included; misconduct shown. | No clear misconduct; some assets may be gifts or loans. | Remand to determine misconduct and adjust distribution. |
| Present value of Campbell pension as of May 31, 2010 | Value of $186,465 supported by record. | No record evidence for $186,465; value should reflect testimony. | Reverse valuation; remand for proper evidence-based value. |
| Gift checks from Mother (checks #2-4) as marital vs nonmarital | Some gift checks were nonmarital; commingling not proven for all. | Proceeds treated as marital assets due to commingling. | Classify gift checks #2-4 and interest as nonmarital assets. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortune v. Fortune, 61 So.3d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (delineates marital vs nonmarital assets; bright-line cut-off)
- Furbee v. Barrow, 45 So.3d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (requires competent evidence to support asset valuation)
- Blase v. Blase, 704 So.2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (premarital contributions and passive accumulations)
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (misconduct required to include dissipated assets)
- Austin v. Austin, 12 So.3d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (tax impact evidence in asset valuation)
- Kadanec v. Kadanec, 765 So.2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (tax consequences in distribution rulings)
- Hornyak v. Hornyak, 48 So.3d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (examines tax penalties when loans are used to avoid penalties)
- Finney v. Finney, 995 So.2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (discretion in asset valuation timing)
- Schmitz v. Schmitz, 950 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (bright-line rule for marital asset determination date)