Wraight v. Wraight
71 So. 3d 139
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Husband Stuart Wraight and Wife Kerry Wraight married in the United Kingdom in February 1999.
- They lived in Canada from 2000 for seven years, both earning similar incomes, and had a daughter born in 2003.
- The family moved to Florida in 2007 when Husband took a city job; Wife could not work in the U.S. due to her visa.
- In July 2008 Wife took the child to the U.K. for a visit and did not immediately return.
- Husband sought relief via Florida courts and Hague Convention; Wife ultimately returned to Florida after four months.
- The final judgment (August 2010) awarded Wife primary custody, allowed permanent relocation to the U.K., granted Husband visitation, and equitably distributed assets; pension and a $4,000 credit were disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relocation standards applied under 61.13001 | Wraight contends the trial court misapplied relocation standards. | Wraight argues the court properly weighed best interests and statutory factors. | Relocation factors were properly considered and supported the decision. |
| Weight of temporary relocation in final decision under 61.13001(6)(c) | Temporary relocation evidence should not influence the final decision. | Temporary relocation evidence may be weighed alongside final factors. | No violation; temporary relocation properly weighed under statute. |
| Treatment of Wife's U.K. pension as marital asset | Husband's non-marital U.K. pension should not be equitably distributed. | Wife argues the pension is subject to distribution as an interspousal gift. | Pension was not a marital asset; equitable distribution reversed on this point. |
| Credit for $4,000 payment under High Court order | Credit should be deducted from Wife's share for $4,000 already paid. | Final judgment did not reflect the $4,000 credit; remand needed. | Remand to determine the $4,000 credit adjustment. |
| Support for other income findings and related issues | Challenge to incomes and imputation of income. | No reversible error on income findings. | No reversible error on income-related issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercurio v. Urban, 552 So.2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (presumption of a gift when assets are interspousal; burden to rebut)
- Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 909 So.2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (note did not create a valid gift of nonmarital assets)
- Luszcz v. Lavoie, 787 So.2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (nonmarital asset treatment and beneficiary rights)
- Berrebbi v. Clarke, 870 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (standards for reviewing relocation-related findings)
- Kuntz v. Kuntz, 780 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (deference to trial court's factual findings in dissolution cases)