Weymouth v. Weymouth
87 So. 3d 30
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Married in 1993; Antenuptial Agreement pre-marriage delineated premarital assets and a general marital property rule; no express waiver of growth in premarital assets.
- Husband owned Broward County home at marriage with value $250,000 and mortgage $160,000; home titled in husband’s name, paid with marital funds, and improvements made during marriage.
- Relationship deteriorated in 2006–2007; husband engaged in extramarital affair and moved toward North Carolina, prompting wife to file for divorce in November 2007.
- Trial court found the basis for dissolution was adultery and awarded extensive alimony, asset distribution, and fees; an Amended Final Judgment and later an Amended Fee Judgment followed.
- On appeal, husband challenges alimony basis and income determinations, equitable distribution of the Broward home and North Carolina property, Bank of America accounts, and related fee awards; court remands for reconsideration consistent with statutory and case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premarital asset growth waiver scope | Weymouth argues waiver covers all premarital assets and their growth | Weymouth contends waiver did not expressly address passive appreciation | Waiver did not expressly cover passive appreciation; remand for distribution per Kaaa |
| Broward home: distribution of passive appreciation | Wife entitled to a share of passive appreciation | Home itself non-marital; passive appreciation limited | Remand; apply Kaaa methodology to determine marital share of passive appreciation |
| North Carolina property: internal inconsistency | Amended Judgment and schedule inconsistent about 50/50 split | Court should align schedule with equitable split | Remand for corrected equitable distribution schedule reflecting 50% proceeds to each |
| Life insurance/needs securing alimony | Insurance amount appropriate to secure alimony | Overly large life insurance to secure both alimony and child support | Reverse as to $1,000,000 requirement; remand to determine appropriate amount and allocation |
| Post-trial evidence on needs | Court should consider post-trial needs evidence | Evidence should be admitted; not decisive | Moot to the extent Broward home issue requires reconsideration; remand for new evidentiary hearing on needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdes v. Valdes, 894 So.2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (passive appreciation of non-marital asset subject to distribution when not addressed by prenup)
- Ledea-Genaro v. Genaro, 963 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (unambiguous quitclaim clause may affect ownership at dissolution)
- Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So.3d 867 (Fla.2010) (outlines method to apportion passive appreciation of non-marital assets)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 651 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (guidance on calculating non-owner spouse’s share of appreciation)
- Tilchin v. Tilchin, 65 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (remand for reconsideration when equitable distribution affects alimony)
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (dissipation must be shown to include assets in distribution)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 63 So.3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (allocate insurance securing alimony vs. child support on remand)