Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

..."Failure to include findings of fact as required by section 61.08 is reversible error." Farley v. Farley, 800 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The purpose of these findings "is to assist the appellate court in providing a meaningful review." Milo, 718 So.2d at 344-45. As for equitable distribution, section 61.075(3)(b) requires the trial court to make specific findings of fact regarding "[i]dentification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset."...

...Here, the judgment does not contain any factual findings regarding the alimony factors. See § 61.08(2)(a)-(g). The judgment also omits findings concerning the value of several of the couple's significant marital assets which were subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(3)(b)....

...Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bayer v. Global Renaissance Arts, Inc., 869 So.2d 1232, 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We have not, however, held that an order which lacks a finding required under section 61.08 or 61.075 is fundamentally erroneous simply by virtue of the technical deficiency in the trial court's findings....

...f the increase in value of the husband's premarital securities resulted from marital labor, making it marital property. We reject the husband's contention that the fourteen percent annual return he achieved over twenty-five years was purely passive. Section 61.075(5)(a) defines marital assets as including the "enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ......

...An issue similar to that presented in the instant case arose in Straley v. Frank, 15 F.L.W. 2564 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 11, 1990). In that case, judges of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, sitting as the Second District Court of Appeal, stated: Further, we note that section 61.075(3)(a)5 specifically provides: All real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset....

...The predicate for our jurisdiction in the instant case is its conflict with the foregoing statement in Straley. Subsequently, however, the judges of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc as the Second District Court of Appeal, repudiated the panel decision and held that the enactment of section 61.075(3)(a)5, Florida Statutes (1989), did not change the principle of Ball....

...Notwithstanding the fact that there is no longer a conflict of decisions in the district courts of appeal, having accepted jurisdiction when there was a conflict, we have agreed to render a decision in this case because of the important issue involved. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), created a statutory form of equitable distribution....

...However, the court is directed to distribute the marital assets and liabilities "in such proportions as are equitable" after considering various enumerated factors as well as any other factors "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). *494 As we read it, section 61.075(3)(a)5 preempted the principle established in Ball....

...In this case, the trial judge ruled for the wife without regard to the effect of the new statute. However, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the evidence supports the conclusion that a gift was intended because this suit was filed after October 1, 1988, the date upon which section 61.075 became effective....

...The physical misfortune of one spouse clearly cannot be utilized to improperly benefit the noninjured spouse. We also note that the recent equitable distribution legislation does not expressly address personal injury, workers' compensation, or disability awards. See § 61.075, Fla....

...e note that nowhere in the amended final judgment does the trial court identify the significant liabilities listed on the parties' financial affidavits as either marital or nonmarital nor does the amended final judgment distribute these liabilities. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial court to make written findings clearly identifying the marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities and clearly identifying which spouse is responsible for which liability....

...Estimates of the Husband's anticipated earnings ranged between $50,000 and $100,000. The Wife earned $35,000 in salary during 1995, working forty hours per week. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERFORMING AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES A. Unequal Equitable Distribution Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1993), mandates an equitable distribution of net marital assets unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors....

...d designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability; (d) Any other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. § 61.075(3)....

...e used marital funds for his or her own benefit, and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage was undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. See id. at 823 (citations omitted). In 1993, the Legislature adopted this concept in section 61.075, when it added the following as a factor for the court to consider in distributing marital assets: The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition. § 61.075(1)(i)....

...The final judgment stated that "[t]he Court determines that the parties shall keep their own respective retirement accounts and plans without claim from the other party." This provision of the final judgment also stated that the parties' pension/retirement benefits accrued during the marriage. Section 61.075(6) states that the date for determining the marital assets and liabilities, and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities, is the earlier of the date the parties entered into a valid separation agreement or the date o...

...the Husband. See Cooper v. Cooper, 639 So.2d 153, 155 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994)(error to distribute value of husband's IRA liquidated before final hearing and used to pay temporary support order). The trial court also failed to comply with the dictates of section 61.075(3)(b), by not identifying the value of the Wife's pension....

...Other than the $1,780 Macy's debt, which the court specifically allocated to the Husband, the trial court failed to perform an equitable distribution of this marital debt. The court's failure to make findings clearly identifying the marital liabilities and designating which spouse was responsible for each, as required by section 61.075(3)(c), constitutes reversible error. See Keaton v. Keaton, 634 So.2d 798, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(reversed equitable distribution scheme for failure to make statutory findings required by section 61.075(3))....

...trial court's findings of fact. See section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1991). I only write separately to clarify two points. First, the findings of fact should be in writing. I see no distinction in the practical impact between section 61.08(2) and section 61.075(3)....

...3d DCA 1991), decided July 2, 1991 (one day after the effective date of section 61.08(1) and (2), the third district affirmed that portion of a judgment which awarded alimony based on consideration of the factors set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) and in section 61.08(1). Also analogous is section 61.075 which has been applied only prospectively....

...[2] Section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1991), does not specifically require that these findings be set forth in the final judgment; therefore, oral findings made on the record are sufficient. See Gidden v. State, 613 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1993). Compare section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991), which requires "specific written findings of fact" relative to the distribution of marital assets and liabilities in a contested dissolution action. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...ontemplated by the statutes, see Harvey v. Harvey, 17 FLW D983 [596 So.2d 1251] (Fla. 4th DCA April 15, 1992), it is this court's reading of the equitable distribution and alimony statutes together that such an award is appropriate. Florida Statutes § 61.075 requires the court in making an equitable distribution to consider designated relevant factors, including "the contribution to the marriage by each spouse, including contributions to the care and education of the children and services as homemaker .....

...ble and without value for purposes of equitable distribution. While the note might not be worth its face amount, it does have some value. We, therefore, remand to the trial court to take evidence on the value of this asset on a date determined under section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1991), and to include it in the equitable distribution scheme....

...rriage and the final hearings, the complexity of the corporations' financial activities, and the lack of specific information," it lacked evidence of *1376 the exact nature of the marital debts and could not make factual findings. We note that under section 61.075(6), the date of valuation for marital liabilities is not the date of the final hearing, but is generally the date the parties first separated or first filed the petition for dissolution....

...Furthermore, the parties' financial statements listed certain liabilities, including the loans encumbering the insurance policies. The court had evidence from which it could calculate the amount of the marital debts. On remand, it must assign a value to these debts and include them in the equitable distribution. § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat....

...While acknowledging the employee spouse's reliance upon Summers, the court nonetheless held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the nonvested plan was a marital asset. The Fourth District also cited the recent enactment of Section 61.075(3)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...ans and programs." The court thereupon concluded that the statute "effectively eliminates the holding of Summers. " It is not clear in Hennessey, however, whether the marital dissolution proceeding therein was instituted before the effective date of section 61.075. Moreover, Hennessey did not refer to Section 61.076(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), which, like section 61.075, provides that both vested and nonvested benefits in pensions "are marital assets subject to equitable distribution." Both statutes are expressly made applicable "to all proceedings commenced after the effective date of this act[,]" which was October 1, 1988....

...Concerning the wife's inheritance, the court failed to designate as marital or non-marital (or to explain why it failed to do so) the $39,000 the wife inherited but subsequently commingled into the parties' joint account (which account was used for various family purchases). Such a designation is required by 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...clarify the issue of the husband's true income. I also concur with the majority that on remand the trial court should make "specific written findings of fact" regarding whether the wife's inheritance is a non-marital or marital asset as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Amato, 596 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). See also Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1991). I would not, however, require the trial court to detail the evidence supporting its conclusion because no such requirement is contained in either Robertson or Amato or in section 61.075(7)....

...o continue his pattern of savings and the security attendant thereto, while the wife, based on the majority's holding, will have no comparable opportunity to continue in accordance with the parties' previous lifestyle. QUINCE, J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), provides in part: (5) As used in this section: (a) "Marital assets and liabilities" include: 1....

...Assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them; [and] . . . . 4. All vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs.... Id., § 61.075(5)(a)....

...Boyett, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997), to be dispositive because Boyett implicated both a different statute and different policy considerations. In Boyett, this Court interpreted the equitable distribution statute and, in particular, the statutory definition of marital assets pursuant to section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...5th DCA 1996) (four days notice of hearing not sufficient for an award of guardianship fees and costs). Because our reversal will result in a hearing and new final order of dissolution in this matter, we will also discuss the deficiencies in the present order. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), addresses the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. It requires the trial court to "begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal...." § 61.075(1), Fla.Stat....

...The final judgment here awards all the marital assets, except one-half of any pension the husband may have, to the wife. In order to justify a departure from the statute's instruction that the distribution be equal, the trial court must analyze all relevant factors, including the ten set out in section 61.075(1)(a) through (j)....

...The only finding in the final order here that could be read as an explanation of the court's unequal distribution of the assets is that "the husband, in direct violation of this Court's Order has liquidated numerous items of marital property, including stocks and life insurance policies." See § 61.075(1)(i), Fla.Stat....

...ing the marital assets unequally. Moreover, the final judgment awards all the liquidated assets, or their proceeds, to the wife. A related problem with the equitable distribution in the present order is that the court did not value the assets. Under section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), *637 it must include specific written findings about the identity and value of the parties' significant assets....

...When the court enters a new final order of dissolution, it must make specific findings about the identity and value of all the significant marital assets and liabilities. We further direct that if the court again distributes the assets unequally, it make specific findings supporting its reasons for doing so. See § 61.075(1)(a)—(j), Fla.Stat....

...enjoy the numerous additional rights reserved exclusively to partners in marriage. Some of the rights that are exclusive to the marriage relationship include: the right to jointly adopt (Fla.Stat. § 63.042(2)(a)); equal rights in property acquired during the marriage (Fla.Stat. § 61.075); the right to hold property as tenants by the entireties (Fla.Stat....

...Before moving to the question of value of the marital asset portion of the plan, we address the issue of date of valuation. Before making a distribution of marital assets and liabilities, the trial court must first determine which assets and liabilities are marital and which are nonmarital. § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (1989). Section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (1989) provides: The date for determining marital assets and liabilities and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreeme...

...requesting the trial court to require Mr. Moon to produce documentation for his retirement account. This court has been under the impression that discovery such as this generally takes place before the trial of the dissolution matter. In any event, section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is fairly specific: In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, or in a proceeding for disposition of assets followi...

...The value of the profit sharing plan at the time of the marriage. 2. Increases in value of the profit sharing plan attributable solely to passive growth of these premarital assets. 3. The value of profit sharing funds acquired during the marriage which are attributable to marital efforts. See § 61.075(5)....

...We wish to emphasize that the party alleging entitlement to an asset is generally required to introduce evidence which shows such entitlement. See Zaborowski v. Zaborowski, 547 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We recognize the burden placed upon trial courts by the equitable distribution statute, section 61.075, and by various cases requiring factual findings....

...ace the enhanced value of the marital asset portion through the separation. Likewise, if the court uses the separation date for determining and valuing any asset, the judgment must establish that such is "just and equitable under the circumstances." § 61.075(4), Fla....

...ithout making the required findings of value. We conclude that this argument has been waived and we therefore affirm. The proper method of equitably dividing assets and liabilities in a dissolution of marriage case is regulated in detail by statute. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2007), states in material part that "any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by findings in the judgment," and that the judgment shall include specific findings of fact as to t...

...ty and the parties have presented some evidence of value for each of the significant assets. A trial judge has no duty under the statute to make findings of value if the parties have not presented any evidence on that issue. The findings required by section 61.075(3)(b) help to facilitate the right of appellate review....

...at or some item of personal property that was included in an equitable distribution of property. In some cases, the trial courts would be required to begin the process anew, and that would only reward the party who failed to make a timely objection. Section 61.075(3)(b) requires the trial court to make a finding of the individual value of significant assets but it does not suggest that a failure to make such a finding is an issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal....

...d so if anything ever happens to you, I won't have to go through the court system." She testified she understood him as offering to give her half interest in the property, and that he said he meant to do so by the deed he executed. Pertinent here is section 61.075(5)(a)5., Florida Statutes (2004), which provides: All real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset....

...by the former husband. [4] The provision in the judgment which retains jurisdiction to conduct post-judgment proceedings on the former wife's "claim" to an interest in the pension *740 does not give her a clear interest nor an effective remedy. [5] Section 61.075(3) requires that any distribution of marital assets or liabilities be supported by written fact findings in the judgment....

...AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] It appears the parties had been filing separate tax returns. [2] See Brotman v. Brotman, 528 So.2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 597 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); § 61.075(5)(a), Fla.Stat....

...5th DCA 1996). [4] Kirkland v. Kirkland, 618 So.2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); DeLoach v. DeLoach, 590 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Moon v. Moon, 594 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). [5] See Eckroade v. Eckroade, 570 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). [6] § 61.075(6); Huber v. Huber, 687 So.2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). [7] § 61.075(1), Fla.Stat. [8] § 61.075(1), Fla.Stat....

...ey's fee. We also agree with the husband's argument that the trial court erred in awarding the wife, as part of the equitable distribution scheme, a home on Manasota Key that was his prior to the marriage and which remains titled solely in his name. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1997), which governs equitable distribution of property, requires the trial court to "set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities....

...ive appreciation. A minor amount of the appreciation in value was attributable to nonpassive, marital efforts. On remand, the trial court shall determine the amount of that nonpassive appreciation and it only shall be treated as a marital asset. See § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...what the proceeds were used for. Since the parties did not have a valid separation agreement setting a cut-off date for determining marital assets and liabilities, the trial court abused its discretion in including this debt as a marital liability. Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that the cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation a...

...determines is just and equitable under the circumstances. Different assets may be valued as of different dates as, in the judge's discretion, the circumstances require. See id.; see also Rao-Nagineni v. Rao, 895 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2003), provides a bright line rule for setting the date to be used in determining the marital classification of assets and liabilities....

...nstance, deprived former wife of substantial passive appreciation of the marital asset during the two-year period from the time of the filing of the petition to the final hearing by setting the value as of the date of the filing of the petition. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...or her own attorney's fees and costs. The wife moved for a rehearing on the ground that the acreage distributed was worth more than the values relied upon by the court. The court denied the motion. Our decision in this case requires consideration of Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), providing: (3) As used in this section: (a) "Marital assets and liabilities" include: * * * * * * 2....

...he property as tenants by the entireties, the statutory burden was on appellee — not appellant — to show that his mother had not intended to convey the property as a gift to him and his wife. Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491, 494 (Fla. 1991). Section 61.075(3)(a), (5), effective October 1, 1988, applies to all proceedings commenced after the effective date of the act....

...None of these statements constitutes competent, substantial evidence rebutting the statutory presumption that real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties is a marital asset. Cf. Robertson v. Robertson . Because the former husband failed to carry his burden of proof under section 61.075(3)(a), (5), we reverse on this point and remand with directions for the court to include as a marital asset within its equitable distribution of the parties' property the 23.05 acre-tract deeded jointly to both....

...The father testified that the money had not been repaid (R 20), possibly indicating that these loans were in reality gifts. In addition, the wife had never signed the notes for the $14,000 and $15,000 distributions to the husband (R 20). [13] This defect has fortunately been remedied by section 61.075, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1991. Specific findings of valuation and identity of marital assets will have to be made in contested cases pursuant to section 61.075(3).

...Mitchell to quit-claim all of his interest to Ms. Mitchell, thus awarding her the entire equity of $36,751. This was error. Because Mr. Mitchell acquired the home prior to the marriage and kept it titled in his name, it was his nonmarital property. *567 § 61.075(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 61.075(1) provides that "the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouses's nonmarital assets and liabilities...." Absent an agreement, a nonmarital asset may not be awarded to the non-owner spouse as equitable distribution. See Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So.2d 406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). On the other hand, the enhancement in value of a nonmarital asset resulting from either party's nonpassive efforts or the expenditure of marital funds is a marital asset. § 61.075(5)(a)2.; Belmont, 761 So.2d at 408....

...Otherwise, the North Carolina property is Mr. Mitchell's nonmarital asset. FAILURE TO CHARACTERIZE AND DISTRIBUTE LIABILITIES The circuit court failed to characterize as marital or nonmarital three revolving *568 charge accounts. On remand, the court shall comply with section 61.075(1) by determining whether these liabilities are marital or nonmarital....

...s findings explaining the reasons for departure from the guidelines. In addition, before making a distribution of marital assets and liabilities, the trial court must first determine which assets and liabilities are marital and which are nonmarital. § 61.075, Fla....

...te the following errors and omissions that should be addressed upon remand. The final judgment does not identify the date used for determining marital assets and liabilities and, therefore, the date is presumed to be the date the petition was filed. § 61.075(6), Fla....

...nd liabilities if the court uses a date other than the date the petition was filed. After the date is determined, the trial court should distribute all assets and liabilities in existence on that date in accordance with the requirements set forth in section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...We approve the holding of the Fifth District in this case that the valuation of a vested retirement plan is not to include any contributions made after the original judgment of dissolution. We believe that this gives effect to the statutory definition of marital assets in section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), [3] and to section 61.076(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 266 (Fla.1986). [2] Because respondent's interest was fully vested as of the date of dissolution, the only increase in the value of the pension between the date of dissolution and the date of retirement would come from an increase in respondent's salary. [3] Section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provides in relevant part that marital assets and liabilities include: 1....

...On appeal, the husband asserts numerous errors with the trial court's equitable distribution. The standard of review of a trial court's determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion. Bogard v. Bogard, 490 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1986) ( citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980))). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes, requires that distribution of marital assets and liabilities be supported by "factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence...." § 61.075....

...ort awards due to a lack of statutorily required findings of fact. Additionally, the final judgment improperly imposed an injunction against the Husband having any contact with the Wife or son, and we direct that such provisions be struck on remand. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2002), "requires the trial court to distribute marital assets and liabilities between the parties beginning with the premise that an equal distribution should occur." Feger v....

...o justify its unequal distribution. Id. at 615. The final distribution of marital assets, whether equal or unequal, must be supported by factual findings based on substantial competent evidence. Prest v. Tracy, 749 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Section 61.075(3) states in part that the final judgment shall make a clear identification of marital and nonmarital assets, an individual valuation of significant assets, and a designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset....

...and separate property"; all personal property remaining in the home except the Husband's clothing, tools, and family photos and history; and all remaining personal property. The final judgment fails to include any of the findings of fact required in section 61.075(3)....

...(1947); § 65.08, Fla. Stat. (1949) ("In any award of permanent alimony the court shall have jurisdiction to order periodic payments or payment in lump sum."). At that time, Florida had no statute comparable to our current method of equitable distribution. See § 61.075, Fla....

...Judges and lawyers, at least in loose discussion, continue to rely upon the concept of lump sum alimony as a means of equitable distribution. Nevertheless, under current statutes, if marital assets and liabilities cannot be equally divided pursuant to section 61.075, it is the better practice to award an equalizing monetary payment as an aspect of equitable distribution-not to intermingle asset distribution issues with alimony issues....

...Thus, the case law in which lump sum alimony actually functions as a form of equitable distribution is of little or no value. Because the legislature has continued to give judges the power to order lump sum payment of permanent or rehabilitative alimony in section 61.08 after creating section 61.075, the legislature must intend for lump sum payments to have a function separate and apart from equitable distribution....

...uld be followed on remand. I point this out because the evidence on the determination of marital assets and their value covered a period of years with little agreement on any particular date as of which all marital assets were determined and valued. Section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: (4) The date for determining marital assets and liabilities and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation ag...

...As this court has held, chapter 61 requires the final judgment of dissolution contain a list of marital assets to be distributed and "an `individual valuation of significant assets.'" Singleton v. Singleton, 696 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting § 61.075(3), Fla....

...[1] We are unable to speculate regarding what appears to be an unequal distribution of marital assets, and note that if, on remand, the trial court decides to make an unequal distribution, the court should make findings which support its conclusion. See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...ractice case is within the trial court's discretion under § 90.702, Florida Statutes (1997). Reference to the transcript of the trial demonstrates some confusion as to the appropriate causation standard. The trial court charged the jury pursuant to § 61.075, Florida Statutes (1995), regarding equitable distribution of marital assets. As was the case with the Wisconsin statute in Helmbrecht v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 122 Wis.2d 94, 362 N.W.2d 118, 137 (1984), § 61.075 has codified the various factors to be considered by a judge in making an equitable distribution. The existence of a valid contract between a husband and wife is the type of factor a judge could take into consideration under § 61.075(1)(j) as being "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." The jury was required to determine what a reasonable judge would have awarded in the underlying dissolution, had it had the proof of the marital contracts before it....

...Acker's argument that the trial court's decision is in conflict with a correct application of this Court's decision in Diffenderfer. Rather, we approve the Third District Court of Appeal's opinion in respect to Diffenderfer and the court's application of sections 61.075 and 61.08, Florida Statutes....

...In dissolution cases, the trial judge possesses the broad, discretionary authority to do equity between the parties. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980). This discretionary authority is guided by the specific considerations provided by the Legislature. We agree with the Third District that in sections 61.075 and 61.08, Florida Statutes, the Legislature provided the guidelines that courts are to follow in determining an equitable distribution of marital property and in determining whether to require a reasonable amount of alimony....

...Acker receives from his pension, which was equitably distributed to *390 him, may be considered by the court when determining Mr. Acker's continued ability to pay alimony. The resolution of this issue is controlled by Florida's equitable-distribution and alimony statutes. See §§ 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2003) (equitable distribution); 61.08, Fla. Stat. (2003) (alimony). The first thing these statutes make clear is that Mr. Acker's pension was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution upon dissolution of marriage. See § 61.075(5)(a)(4), Fla....

...Florida, their counsel, and Florida courts have relied thereon for almost twenty years. Moreover, the Third District, in Acker, asserted that its discussion of Diffenderfer was merely "academic" because the Legislature subsequently enacted sections 61.075(8) and 61.08(2) of the Florida Statutes in 1988, which effectively superseded this Court's Diffenderfer holding. See Acker, 821 So.2d at 1091-92. The majority here approves the Third District's application of sections 61.075(8) and 61.08(2). See majority op. at 389. However, as recognized by Judge Gersten in his dissent in Acker below, with which I totally agree, Florida's equitable distribution statute (section 61.075) and alimony statute (section 61.08) do not at all conflict with this Court's Diffenderfer holding....

...See Acker, 821 So.2d at 1094-95 (Gersten, J., dissenting). Judge Gersten noted in his dissent *398 that "[c]onsiderations in the initial dissolution proceedings are distinct from those raised in a post-dissolution scenario." Id. at 1095. While sections 61.075 and 61.08 pertain to initial dissolution proceedings, here we are faced with a post-dissolution action. Sections 61.075 and 61.08 are not controlling here and the generalizations contained therein do not even attempt to address the specific true issue with which we are confronted in this case....

...permits a second redistribution of an asset already distributed as property in the initial process. In an initial dissolution proceeding, a court begins the equitable distribution of property with the "premise that the distribution should be equal." § 61.075(1), Fla....

...a principle previously contrary to a well-developed body of Florida law. The asset here was valued, characterized and distributed as property in the original proceeding rendering it separate property which is now subject to redistribution. NOTES [1] Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), provided in pertinent part: (1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ......

...[4] In short, the finding of waste and misuse of assets was in error, as was the equitable distribution based thereon. Since there must be further proceedings on remand, we note that this dissolution proceeding is subject to the equitable distribution statute. Section 61.075, Fla....

...(1991). Equitable distribution of marital assets is presumptively equal, but may be varied if there is good reason to do so. See Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 559 So.2d 82, 83 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1990), and cases cited therein; § 61.075(1), Fla....

...Pursuant to this statute, "the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities and shall distribute between the parties the marital assets and liabilities in such proportions as are equitable, after considering all relevant factors... ." Section 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). The factors are enumerated in the statute. "Nonmarital assets and liabilities include ... [a]ssets acquired and liabilities incurred by either party prior to the marriage... ." Id. § 61.075(5)(b)....

...the enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both... ." Id. § 61.075(5)(a)(2)....

...The two remaining limited partnerships were purchased during the course of the marriage and are marital assets. Maria Elena received jewelry from William during the marriage. That jewelry, as well as any other interspousal gifts, is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under section 61.075(5)(a)(3)....

...Appropriate credit shall be given for any marital expenses paid for with that money. Finally, for purposes of the remand we note that the equitable distribution statute has recently been amended to require that specific factual findings be made and included in the judgment. Section 61.075(3), Fla....

...life insurance proceeds, which the final judgment does not value but divides equally between the parties. We cannot review this without a transcript as we do not know whether any evidence of valuation was introduced. A trial judge has no duty under section 61.075 to make findings of value if the parties have not presented any evidence on that issue....

...of sale including mortgage payoff." Notwithstanding, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the exact division of the proceeds. First, we find the trial court failed to properly identify the parties' marital and nonmarital assets as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991), which requires a trial court clearly identify marital and nonmarital assets, and designate which spouse shall receive each asset....

...nt, such as the payment of permanent periodic alimony or the performance of extraordinary services over and above the normal marital duties. Bobb v. Bobb, 552 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Ervin v. Ervin, 553 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also section 61.075(1) (requiring a trial court consider, when fashioning an equitable distribution plan, "all relevant factors," including the contribution of each spouse to the marriage, contribution to each other, duration of the marriage, and any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties)....

...Daniel, Gainesville, for appellee. ZEHMER, Judge. Rudolph Dyson appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He raises four issues regarding the distribution of the parties' assets and liabilities, three of which involve the application and enforcement of section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...essing Karen Dyson's interest in Dyson Cabinets at $5,000 without sufficient evidence of such value and contrary to the evidence of the case. Before specifically discussing each point it is appropriate to review certain applicable provisions of law. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part that "[i]n a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ..., the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities and shall distribute between the...

...(g) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income or the improvement of, or the incurring of liabilities to, both marital assets and nonmarital assets of the parties. (h) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. Section 61.075(4) provides: The date for determining marital assets and liabilities and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as ma...

...r the circumstances and both the reason and the other date are stated in the final judgment. Bain v. Bain, 553 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In order that an appellate court may provide adequate review to assure compliance with the requirements of section 61.075(4), therefore, we conclude that unless the circuit court distributing marital assets in a final judgment of dissolution specifically identifies a valuation date of these assets that is different from the date of filing of the petition...

...nt free. While, as Karen Dyson argues, that evidence may have prompted the trial court to use the hearing date rather than the filing date for valuation purposes, the justification for doing so was not explicated in the final judgment as required by section 61.075(4); the judgment does not indicate that the trial court made any supportable determination that it was just and equitable under the circumstances to use a date other than the filing date to value the pension plan....

...indings? No values are unclear, other than as to assets converted and controlled by the husband. No valuation date is questioned other than that of appellee's pension, and the court has indicated why it chose the date-of-hearing value sufficient for Section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes....

...udice of the former wife, we are of the view that on remand the trial court should be given the discretion to reconsider the entire equitable distribution scheme contemplated by the parties in an effort to do equity and justice to both. See Sections 61.075 and 61.08, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...ation agreement on the ground that the agreement was unreasonable. [2] See Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1986). The Diffenderfer rule has now been codified in the Florida Statutes. See § 61.076, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). See also § 61.075(3)(a)4, Fla....

...Randy Alpha, the former husband, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution, raising numerous grounds: the trial court erred in not making findings concerning the identity of the parties' marital and non-marital assets, and their values as required by section 61.075(3)(a-d); the trial court erred in awarding the former wife, Elizabeth Alpha, rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $350.00 per month for a period of four years; it was error to require Randy to maintain life insurance in the sum of $...

...unimproved land in Georgia (marital or not marital), the valuation and nature (marital or not marital) of Randy's insurance business, and an award of attorney's fees and costs to Elizabeth. I. Failure of the Trial Court to Make Findings Required by Section 61.075(3). Section 61.075(3) provides that prior to other determinations such as awarding or denying alimony, the trial court should determine which assets and liabilities are non-marital or marital, value them, and designate which spouse is entitled to distribution of each asset, supported by fact findings. This court has held in many cases, that unless the trial court makes the findings required by section 61.075(3) as well as those outlined in section 61.08(2), in granting or denying alimony awards, appellate review is defeated, and we must reverse and remand for the appropriate findings....

...[2] In this case, the parties stipulated as to how a majority of their marital assets should be distributed and to their values. Neither party requested specific findings in this regard at trial or on rehearing. Further, as to the stipulated items, it is questionable whether specific fact findings are required because section 61.075(3) states it is applicable: "[i]n any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed...." [3] (Emphasis supplied) As indicated by the stipulation, it appears the parties agreed to divide their marital assets roughly 50/50....

...With regard to the two disputed items, the Georgia property and Randy's insurance business, sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court's findings that both were marital assets. It made specific findings that they were marital, placed a value on each, and made a 50/50 division of each, as required by section 61.075....

...s parents when Randy retired. Randy testified the deed was executed for estate planning purposes and no gift was intended. However, the trial court found Randy's testimony was insufficient to overcome the express terms of the deed. Thus, pursuant to section 61.075(5)(a)3, the court found it was a marital asset....

...Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Killius v. Killius, 701 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). [3] See Vick v. Vick, 675 So.2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). [4] Florida law holds otherwise. See § 61.075, Fla....

...1st DCA 2002); Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 677 So.2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). [5] See Makowski v. Makowski, 613 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). [6] See Bijlani v. Pioneer House Associates, 719 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Ferry v. Abrams, 679 So.2d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). [7] See § 61.075(7), Fla....

...[8] The court expressly found Elizabeth's contributions were undisputed as to the marriage through her efforts of working in Randy's office for five years with little or no pay and, part time, until 1995 and thereafter devoting herself to caring for the parties' child, school and homemaking. [9] § 61.075(1) and (8), Fla....

...findings with respect to the values of the significant marital assets. [1] The absence of those findings frustrates meaningful appellate review and we must remand this case to the trial court for findings consistent with the requirements of sections 61.075(3) and 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...The portion of the final judgment dissolving the marriage is affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED. HARRIS, C.J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., concurs specially, with opinion. W. SHARP, Judge, concurring specially. I agree this case must be reversed and remanded for findings required by section 61.075(3) as to the identity of marital assets, their valuation, and their ultimate disposition to the parties (outright or by way of substitution of assets)....

...Bussey, 611 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Until those findings are made, an appellate court cannot undertake a meaningful review of the appealed judgment. In addition, the trial court is directed by section 61.075(3) to specify the factors listed in section 61.075(1), or "[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties," which support the trial court's distribution of marital assets and liabilities....

...port of unequal division of marital assets). We reached the result in Vaughn knowing that the equitable distribution statute requires "specific written findings" as to various aspects concerning identification and distribution of marital assets. See § 61.075(3)(a)-(d), Fla....

...The words "include an evaluation" in such a descriptive statute are not ordinarily understood to mean "written findings." On the other hand, whenever in chapter 61 the legislature actually wanted the trial judge to spell out factual findings in written judgments, it knew how to say so. E.g., § 61.075(3), Fla....

...rties' purported oral agreements regarding the use and possession of the former marital home and the former husband's child support obligation. The trial court also erred by distributing the parties' assets without complying with the requirements of section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...te, to determine whether "good cause" exists to defer the effective date of that order. Fourth, we hold that the trial court erred by not making written findings identifying and assigning values to the marital assets and liabilities, in violation of section 61.075, Florida Statutes. Section 61.075(3) provides in pertinent part: (3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings...

...r the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. The instant case was a "contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and *955 agreement has not been entered and filed." § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Additionally, a review of the record reveals that there were no written stipulations entered or filed by the parties; the trial court stated that there were merely "partial agreements to certain aspects of this case." Therefore, the trial court was required to follow the instruction in section 61.075(3), as set forth above....

...bile; and (4) states that the parties have no joint debts and each party shall pay his or her own debts. The Final Judgment does not make a single finding as to the valuation of any of the distributed marital property, contrary to the instruction of section 61.075(3)(b)....

...error and requires remand for appropriate findings to be made." Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So.2d 732, 732; see, e.g., Reyes v. Reyes, 714 So.2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Therefore, we also remand this matter to the trial court to make the written findings § 61.075(3)(b) requires for purposes of facilitating meaningful review....

...arried her burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a gift was not intended when she joined in placing the property in their joint names on the deed to the property. The equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities is governed by section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...In Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we stated: The legislature directs courts in dissolution proceedings to consider certain factors and "distribute between the parties marital assets and liabilities in such proportions as are equitable." § 61.075(1), Florida Statutes *289 (1989)....

...e, or to balance a permanent periodic alimony award. Ervin. If the trial court decides to make an unequal division, the court should make findings which support its conclusion. Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). 589 So.2d at 1364. Subsection 61.075(3) specifically requires that, in a contested dissolution action in which no stipulation or agreement has been entered and filed, "any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the...

...The final judgment contains no written findings to justify and support this unequal distribution of the marital assets and liabilities. Thus, the entire distribution of marital assets must be reversed and this cause remanded with directions to reconsider the equitable distribution scheme in light of the factors set forth in section 61.075, and to make the written findings required by subsection 61.075(3) that justify any unequal distribution of marital assets....

...arry this extraordinarily heavy burden of proof, nor can we determine whether the court applied that legal standard. Accordingly, we reverse the special equity award and remand for further consideration and findings by the trial court on this issue. Section 61.075(5)(a)5, Fla....

...marital liability. [1] Nevertheless, the trial court ordered that the $25,000 debt would be "the Husband's sole responsibility based on the timing of the loans and the status of the marriage at the time the Husband took out these loans." Based upon section 61.075, the evidence, and the stipulation of the parties, it was error for the trial court to determine that the $25,000 debt was the Husband's nonmarital obligation....

...[2] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on April 11, 2001. The parties did not enter into a separation agreement. See § 61.075(5), (6), and (7), Fla....

...The Florida legislature has mandated that when the trial court distributes the marital assets, it must provide specific written findings of fact identifying and assigning a value to marital assets, and giving a clear identification of non-marital assets. See § 61.075(3)....

...This lack of findings complicates review of the equitable distribution order in a further way. Although the trial court may distribute marital assets unequally, the trial court is required to justify such an award based on "all relevant factors," nine of which are specifically enumerated in section 61.075(1)....

...Here, the wife received an unequal portion of the asset distribution. The final judgment fails to set forth the findings necessary to support the unequal award. In the absence of such findings, which serve to advise the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale, see section 61.075(3)(d), we are unable to determine why the wife, who started the current businesses with inherited monies, received less than the husband, and whether this was equitable....

...t in value which occurred during the pendency of the litigation. In contrast, the wife here was awarded a specific monetary interest in the husband's pension plans; namely, $89,602.29. We affirm the court's valuation of the pension plans, relying on section 61.075(6) of the Florida Statute (1999) which states: *504 61.075 Equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities.— * * * The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances....

...spouse or jointly by them. [2] The choice of dates to value marital assets is largely within the trial court's discretion. Moore at 257; Perlmutter v. Perlmutter, 523 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 531 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1988). See also § 61.075(4), Fla....

...Carroll, 528 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 538 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 1988); Trant v. Trant, 522 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Howerton v. Howerton, 491 So.2d 614, 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Finally, the trial court should consider all the relevant factors listed in section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...5th DCA 1985); Ente v. Ente, 442 So.2d 232, 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); DiPrima v. DiPrima, 435 So.2d 876, 878 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 447 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1984); Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So.2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). [2] See § 61.075(3)(a)....

...On remand, the trial court should include the net value of the former husband's accounts receivable in determining the value of his medical practice so that the trial court can distribute the assets in an equitable manner, given the overall division of marital property. See § 61.075, Fla....

...nventory included machines apparently acquired just prior to the final hearing, well after the petition for dissolution *593 was filed. [1] We have been unable to derive an accurate and meaningful inventory of the machines from the record before us. Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: The date for determining marital assets and liabilities and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreem...

...use of such other date is just and equitable under the circumstances and both the reason and the other date are stated in the final judgment. In order that an appellate court may provide adequate review to assure compliance with the requirements of section 61.075(4), we hold that unless the circuit court distributing marital assets in a final judgment of dissolution specifically identifies a valuation date of these assets that is different from the date of filing of the petition and also recite...

...Appellant, in a fleeting moment of candor, testified that he sold the newspaper to Ms. Grogan for $200 to prevent appellee from obtaining any interest in the newspaper. Finally, the majority attaches great significance to the trial court's failure to set forth, pursuant to section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes, a date other than the filing of the petition for dissolution for the purpose of valuing certain marital assets, and accordingly considers that the trial court's valuation of the assets must be assumed to be the date of filing of the petition....

...uestions. The court did not have the luxury of selecting the date of filing the petition or any other specific date on which the assets should be valued. Moreover, appellant has not complained below or here that the trial court failed to comply with section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes....

...om the final judgment. Before the court makes a distribution of marital assets and liabilities, the court must first determine which assets and liabilities are marital and which are nonmarital. See Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); § 61.075, Fla....

...tituted deferred compensation. We disagree with Mrs. Ruberg's argument, because we conclude that the stock options and restricted shares at issue were granted in consideration of Mr. Ruberg's future job performance and not based on his past efforts. Section 61.075(5)(a)4 defines "[m]arital assets" to include "[a]ll vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in ......

...See Seither v. Seither, 779 So.2d 331, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating that when a stock "option is given as compensation, it can be deferred compensation for past services, compensation for present services, or compensation for future services"). Under section 61.075(6), the "cut[]off date for determining assets ......

...The trial court determined that the unvested options constituted marital property and were to be equally divided between the husband and wife. The First District affirmed, concluding that the unvested stock options were a form of deferred compensation under section 61.075(5)(a)4....

...Be that as it may, the question whether a conveyance or expenditure constitutes a dissipation of marital property does not turn on whether the transaction actually worked to the parties' financial advantage. Rather, to warrant an unequal distribution of marital assets under section 61.075(1)( l ), Florida Statutes (1995), a party's conduct must constitute " intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction" of a marital asset....

..."The standard of review of a trial court's determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion." Kovalchick v. Kovalchick, 841 So.2d 669, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Distribution of marital assets and liabilities must be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...interest in the marital home to the Wife as lump-sum alimony. The trial court made an equitable distribution of the home and granted the Wife the exclusive use and possession of the home until the parties' younger child attains the age of majority. Section 61.075 requires the trial court to distribute the parties' marital assets and liabilities....

...However, based on our remand on the other issues, it will be necessary for the trial court to reconsider the equitable distribution. Distribution of Other Marital Assets and Liabilities The Wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to distribute all marital assets and liabilities, as required by section 61.075(3)....

...econsider the equitable distribution as well. In doing so, the trial court must make findings regarding the value of the marital assets and *684 liabilities and designate which spouse is entitled to each asset and responsible for each liability. See § 61.075(3)....

...On remand, the trial court should not include assets depleted by either party in the equitable distribution scheme. [1] Of course, in re-adjusting the equitable distribution scheme in accordance with this decision, the trial judge may make allowances for any waste of marital assets on the part of the former husband. See § 61.075(1)(b), (i)-(j), Fla....

...In making an equitable distribution of marital property, the trial court may consider the economic circumstances of the parties, the intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition, and any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. See § 61.075(1)(b), (1)(k) and (1)(j), Fla....

...parties or upon the remarriage of the wife. We modify the final judgment to include this limiting language."). Fourth, the final judgment fails to contain specific findings or valuations regarding the marital assets and liabilities as required by subsection 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...However, because of the lack of the required findings it is not possible to determine the value of each party's award of property. See, e.g., Pearce v. Pearce, 626 So.2d 294, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) ("The decree does not comply with the findings and valuation requirements of section 61.075(3) in several particulars....

...By allowing the wife to produce the two lists, the court erroneously delegated its duty of resolving which personal property was deemed to be marital assets and available for distribution and which was nonmarital and not available for distribution. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991), provides as follows: (3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings....

...$175,000— $17,500 per year for a period of ten years. The former husband contends that this was improper because it is payable from his future nonmarital income and constitutes, in essence, an award of lump-sum alimony. We disagree. Pursuant to subsection 61.075(9), Florida Statutes (1997), a trial court, in order to do equity between the parties, "may, in lieu of or to supplement, facilitate, or effectuate the equitable division of marital assets and liabilities, order a monetary payment in a...

...ould be considered marital property for purposes of equitable distribution). On the other hand, if the attorney-spouse was retained and performed work on the cases after the filing of the petition, the fees would not constitute marital property. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...dditional marital assets before the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition, the court refused to consider assigning any of that more remote depletion in dividing the marital assets because—and only because—it construed subsection 61.075(1)(i) as a statute of limitation. We conclude that subsection 61.075(1)(i) does not operate as a two-year statute of limitation, and that the more remote dissipation is a factor which may be considered by the trial court in determining equitable distribution....

...d to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown" (citing Hellwig v. Hellwig, 100 Ill.App.3d 452, 55 Ill.Dec. 762, 426 N.E.2d 1087 (Ill.App.Ct. 1981)). Some three years later, the Florida Legislature enacted subsection 61.075(1)(i), Florida Statutes, which added the following as a factor for the trial court to consider in distributing the assets of the marriage: The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition. [Emphasis supplied]. This factor is one of nine enumerated factors in subsection 61.075(1) which the trial court must consider in distributing the marital assets. Becker v. Becker, 639 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In addition to these nine specific factors, the trial court, pursuant to subsection 61.075(1)(j), should also consider "any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." At issue is whether the trial court is limited to considering dissipation occurring within the two-year time period preceding the f...

...(i), or whether the trial court may, pursuant to subpart (j), consider dissipation occurring before the two-year period as a "factor[] necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." We conclude that the two-year time period set forth in subsection 61.075(1)(i) does not bar a trial court from considering, as an "other factor," dissipation of marital assets which occurs prior to the two-year period preceding the filing of the petition for dissolution. Our conclusion in this regard is not contrary to the plain words of the statute, and is mandated by the primary purpose of subsection 61.075(1), which is to effectuate equity and justice between the parties to a dissolution proceeding....

...If trial courts are precluded from considering such dissipation, wrongdoing spouses who intentionally waste marital assets during the course of the marriage would benefit from their misconduct. In addition, wrongdoing spouses who dissipate marital assets through fraud or concealment would be able to circumvent subsection 61.075(1)(i) by waiting two years from the time of dissipation before filing a petition for dissolution....

...Indeed, a wrongdoing spouse who intentionally wastes substantial marital assets would merely have to conceal that dissipation for two years and one day, in order to avoid any possibility of consideration of the dissipation by the trial court. Viewed in this light, it seems abundantly clear that subsection 61.075(1)(i) was not intended to operate as a statute of limitation....

...Here, the trial court found that the former husband, without the former wife's knowledge, fraudulently dissipated marital assets more than two years before filing the petition for dissolution. The trial court, however, declined to consider such dissipation, solely because it construed subsection 61.075(1)(i) *116 as a statute of limitation....

...The action against Scott was commenced and the resulting judgment entered after the petition for dissolution was filed. Ordinarily, assets created or received by one spouse after the filing of a petition for dissolution are not properly identified as marital assets subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...[5] See Smith v. Smith, 113 N.C.App. 410, 438 S.E.2d 457 (N.C.Ct.App.), review denied, 336 N.C. 74, 445 S.E.2d 37 (N.C.1994). Where no specific transaction or agreement exists between the spouses, the dissolution of marriage statute, specifically, subsection 61.075(1), provides the exclusive remedy where one's spouse has intentionally dissipated marital property during the marriage....

...3d DCA 1986). We also hold that the gold watch and chain are not subject to equitable distribution. In the final judgment, the court stated that the items were given to the wife by the husband's mother. The uncontroverted evidence supports that finding. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that the court shall set apart each spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities and shall distribute the parties' marital assets and liabilities. However, according to section 61.075(3)(b)(2), noninterspousal gifts acquired separately by either party are nonmarital assets....

...3d DCA 1990). [8] In addition, the wife obtained a personal loan to finance replacement of the marital home roof. The final judgment does not disclose whether the trial court considered this liability in fashioning the equitable distribution scheme. Section 61.075(3)(a)(1) provides that "`[m]arital ... liabilities' include: 1... . liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them[.]" [emphasis added]. Unless the husband can overcome the presumption that such loan is a marital liability, § 61.075(5), Fla....

...*1102 The court must make specific, written findings of fact that identify which assets are marital and which are nonmarital*, identify each person's ownership interests, identify the value of each significant asset, state who will take what and address the factors listed in section 61.075, Florida Statutes, explaining why the marital* assets and debts are being divided the way the order says and if the division is not equal, the exact reason(s) why it is not....

...For example, you may need to prepare a deed to give title of land or a house to the husband/wife, or you may need to sign a certificate of title to give a car to the husband/wife. Some of these papers may need to be prepared and signed in a particular manner. It is suggested that an attorney be consulted. Note that section 61.075(4) says that the final judgment dividing your assets and liabilities has the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release, or acquisition which is recorded in the county where the property is located when the j...

...Place of marriage: ____________________________________________________ 3. Date of separation: ___________________________________________________ C. MARITAL ASSETS AND DEBTS THE COURT MUST MAKE SPECIFIC, WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ADDRESS THE FACTORS LISTED IN SECTION 61.075, FLORIDA STATUTES, EXPLAINING WHY THE MARITAL ASSETS AND DEBTS ARE BEING DIVIDED THE WAY THIS ORDER SAYS AND IF THE DIVISION IS NOT EQUAL THE EXACT REASON(S) IT IS NOT....

...Place of marriage: ___________________________________________________ 3. Date of separation: __________________________________________________ C. MARITAL ASSETS AND DEBTS THE COURT MUST MAKE SPECIFIC, WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ADDRESS THE FACTORS LISTED IN SECTION 61.075, FLORIDA STATUTES, EXPLAINING WHY THE MARITAL ASSETS AND DEBTS ARE BEING DIVIDED THE WAY THIS ORDER SAYS AND IF THE DIVISION IS NOT EQUAL THE EXACT REASON(S) IT IS NOT....

...A table of minimum amounts is provided for parents whose combined net annual income is $120,000 or less. If the parents' combined income is more, a formula is applied to calculate support. See Appendix 3 and section 61.30, Florida Statutes, for further information. Equitable Distribution section 61.075, Florida Statutes: The court can divide all marital assets and obligations between the spouses....

Statutes (1987), (which has since been repealed), section 61.075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes (1997), and section

...[5] The husband also argues that the trial court erred in failing to distribute the parties' personal property. Because we are not able to determine from the record whether there was a distribution of personal property, we direct the trial court, upon remand, to conduct further proceedings on this matter. § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (1989). [6] Likewise, the trial court erred in neglecting to distribute the marital liabilities. § 61.075; Italiane v....

...The wife testified that the tools were of equal value to the value of the jewelry which had not been given to her as a gift from the husband. The husband estimated that the value of the jewelry that he had given to the wife was approximately $20,000. Under section 61.075(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1991), gifts from one spouse to another should be treated as marital assets....

...The equitable distribution statute provides that in making an equitable distribution, the trial court must distribute the assets and liabilities of the parties in equitable proportions, considering all relevant factors including the "contribution of each spouse to the ... incurring of liabilities... ." § 61.075(1)(g), Fla....

...on scheme in all respects but one. I would allow the trial judge to consider the legal fees and fines that resulted from the criminal charges against the appellant when determining the appropriate distribution of property. I believe that pursuant to section 61.075(1)(g), Florida Statutes, trial courts should be given great discretion to determine whether serious misconduct has resulted in either a direct dissipation of marital assets, or an adverse impact on the standard of living of the parties....

...mediately converted into marital income. If the corporation retains assets acquired from earnings of a corporation rather than distributing them as dividends to *55 shareholders, the value of the outstanding capital stock should appreciate in value. Section 61.075(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, provides that the appreciation of a non-marital asset during marriage is to be classified as a marital asset if the appreciation resulted from marital efforts....

...Valuation Approach The correct approach in determining whether any portion of the husband's stock issued by Anson-Stoner is marital is to determine the value at the time of marriage and again at the time of dissolution. This approach conforms to the statutory concept of appreciation of non-marital assets as described in section 61.075(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes....

...al Revenue Code. 9. Analysis of a company's retained earnings account to determine whether stock held in that company by a husband or wife is a marital or non-marital asset is not consistent with the criteria for determining the same as set forth in section 61.075(5)(a)2....

...not be charged with the loss and that the Consults Accounts should not be classified as marital property. The non-shareholder spouse in the instant case was not willing to consider the stock's loss of value that occurred during marriage arguing that section 61.075(5)(a)2, is only directed toward consideration of appreciation of separate property during marriage, not reduction in value....

...of his wife that the rewards from his labors would go either to create a more comfortable lifestyle or future security for the two of them. This explains, if it doesn't justify, our holding in Rutland. [2] Editor's Note. Under sections 61.046(7) and 61.075(5)(a)1, Fla....

...You should indicate to whom you believe the item(s) or debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use this column if property/debt was owned/owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the "general information for pro se litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A....

...d. You should indicate to whom you believe the item belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if property was owned by one spouse before the marriage. See the "general information for pro se litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A B C Current Fair Nonmarital ASSETS: DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) Market Value (√ correct column) √ the box next to any asset(s) that you are requesting the judge award to you....

...ed. You should indicate to whom you believe the debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if the debt was owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the "general information for pro se litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A B C Current Amount Owed Nonmarital LIABILITIES: DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) (√ correct column) ------------------ √ the box next to any debt(s) for which you believe you should be responsible....

...es, with $300,000 from their joint Swiss Lake Merrill Lynch account. We conclude that the trial court properly offset the award of the marital asset, Astra by awarding the former wife other marital property to balance the equitable distribution. See § 61.075(9), Fla....

...Consequently, the separation was not a valid justification for disparate division of property where all of the assets were earned prior to separation, and appreciation of those assets resulted from passive investment. We note that our result is consistent with section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1988), which was passed subsequent to the final judgment in this case. Section 61.075(4) provides that the date for determining marital assets is the earliest of the date of a valid separation agreement or such date as established in such an agreement, or the date of the filing of a dissolution proceeding. Since there was no valid separation agreement, the date for determining marital assets would have been in 1986 and not the year of separation, had section 61.075, Florida Statutes, applied....

...Terreros, 531 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Having concluded that the SunTrust account became a marital account, we necessarily also conclude that all principal mortgage reductions paid out of that account on the four properties became marital property. See § 61.075(5)(a)2., Fla....

...ge. If, for example, one party brings to the marriage an asset in which he or she has an equity of fifty percent, the other half of which is financed by marital funds, half the appreciated value at the time of the petition for dissolution was filed, § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...s. The husband's only active role was deciding to maintain the trust and trustee, and to permit the trustee to take his father's and brother's advice and to continue to manage the corpus, and retained income, for his benefit. The relevant portion of section 61.075(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, defines marital assets as including: "the enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ... from the efforts of either party during the marriage...." Section 61.075(5)(b)3, Florida Statutes, provides that nonmarital assets include all income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage, unless the income was treated, used, or relied on by the parties....

...ve investment like a certificate of deposit. To hold that it does invites persons of wealth to place their property in a revocable trust with themselves as trustee, hire a financial manager to make the daily investment decisions, and thereby erect a section 61.075(5)(a)2 shield around this appreciation when they are sued for divorce....

...without concluding that such factual findings were clearly erroneous. We do not agree. The Second District deferred to the trial court's factual findings but found, as a matter of law, that respondent's inherited assets were nonmarital assets under section 61.075(5)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1995), which provides that nonmarital assets include "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." Farrior, 712 So.2d at 1157....

...The majority opinion in this case assists in ensuring the uniformity and predictability of the legal rules with regard to separately owned assets. The Coca-Cola stock at issue in this case was inherited by the *1180 wife and remained in her name throughout the marriage. Therefore, under subsection 61.075(5)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1997), the stock was clearly a nonmarital asset because it was an asset "acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." The stock retained its separate identity so there was no presumption that an interspousal gift was ever intended pursuant to subsection 61.075(5)(a)3. See Williams v. Williams, 686 So.2d 805, 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The husband also does not contend, nor did the trial court find, that he is entitled to a portion of the stock based on subsection 61.075(5)(a)2, providing that a marital asset includes the "enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ......

...umerous matters that the trial court ultimately considered as relevant in reaching its factual conclusion. The comprehensive analysis in the final judgment, after the receipt of extensive evidence, speaks for itself: j. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 61.075(5)(b) and (7) (1995), the Court finds that the 10,298 shares of Coca-Cola Company, the 281 shares of Trust Company of Georgia, and the 429 shares of Genuine Parts stock, as set out in Paragraph (i), were initially nonmarital assets upon the Wife's receipt of said assets; both parties have acknowledged this fact....

...f discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980); Smith v. Smith, 934 So.2d 636, 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). While the initial premise behind an equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities is equal distribution, see § 61.075(1), Fla....

...ported by factual findings based on substantial competent evidence." Guida v. Guida, 870 So.2d 222, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Further, these findings must "advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution." § 61.075(3)(d)....

...As a general proposition, student loan debt incurred during the marriage is a marital liability. See, e.g., Smith, 934 So.2d at 641; Adams v. Cook, 969 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Banton v. Parker-Banton, 756 So.2d 155, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also § 61.075(5)(a)(1)....

...oint account and the Husband's use of the funds to pay marital debts and expenses. We conclude that the trial court used an incorrect legal standard in deciding to classify the proceeds of the Husband's personal injury settlement as a marital asset. Section 61.075(5)(b)(2) provides that nonmarital assets may include "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." Thus the Husband's personal injury settlement qualified as a nonmarital asset upon its receipt....

...property. Accordingly, the trial court began its equitable distribution plan with the premise that the distribution should be equal unless there was a justification for an unequal distribution. Following an analysis of some of the factors set out in section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the court awarded Mr....

...at it did create a parenting plan," albeit unconventional, requiring affirmative action by the father, with the assistance of his caregivers if necessary, to reach out to his daughter. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION In its judgment the court recognized that section 61.075(1) requires the *615 trial court to distribute marital assets and liabilities between the parties beginning with the premise that an equal distribution should occur....

...These items include an automobile, furniture and furnishings, jewelry, tools and other items that the husband values at $57,500. While both the ownership and value of the assets may be in dispute, it is indisputable that written findings of fact identifying marital and non-marital assets are required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...cover card in the amount of $815. On remand, the trial court shall consider these items of assets and liabilities, determine whether they should properly be considered in making an equitable distribution, and if so, make the appropriate allocations. § 61.075(3)(c), Fla....

...However, the Former Wife's pension was not vested at the time of the Parties' separation and therefore had no value. (Emphasis added.) Marital assets subject to equitable distribution include all "vested and non-vested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension ... plans and programs." §§ 61.075(5)(a)4, 61.076(1), Fla....

...uffalo. CONCLUSION We remand: 1) For the clear identification of marital and non-marital assets and liabilities, the value to be given to each, and the designation of the spouse entitled to each asset or responsible for each liability as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Victor Africano, Live Oak, for appellee. WOLF, Judge. Joe Wilmer Deas (husband) appeals from a final order of dissolution of marriage. Appellant raises several points on appeal, two of which merit discussion: 1) Whether the trial court erred by not applying section 61.075, Florida Statutes, when distributing the assets and liabilities of the parties; and 2) whether the trial court erred in awarding rehabilitative alimony to the wife where there was no competent substantial evidence to support the award....

...In February 1990, the marital home was completely destroyed. The husband utilized a large part of the insurance proceeds for paying off debts. The trial court found that these debts, as well as other liabilities, constituted personal debts of the husband. Section 61.075(3)(a), Florida Statutes, defines marital assets and liabilities to include "assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage individually by either spouse or jointly by them." The burden of proof is on the spouse who wishes...

...As the court finds in its final judgment: * * * * 17. The Agreement contains no specific operative provision as to the disposition of property acquired during the marriage but titled in the individual names of the parties (which pursuant to Florida Statute 61.075 would be marital assets)....

...Occasionally, this will require more than an order shifting one spouse's attorneys' fees to the other. In other words, these expenses may become a relevant factor "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties" in establishing an equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. § 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

...She then set up accounts in Panama (at Merrill Lynch and BNP Paribas), which were worth nearly $1 million by 1998. She later transferred these proceeds to Smith Barney in the United States. The account remained titled in Wife's name through the parties' marriage, creating a presumption that it was a nonmarital asset. See § 61.075(6)(b)1.-2., Fla....

...-appeal, Wife contends that the trial court erred in deeming any share of the judgments to be marital. Pursuant to statute, "[m]arital liabilities" include "liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them." § 61.075(6)(a)1.a., Fla....

...responsible for the entire obligation." Black's Law Dictionary 926 (17th ed. 1999). Still, the trial judge has broad discretionary authority to do equity between the parties, and may, for example, unequally distribute marital liabilities. See, e.g., § 61.075(1)(g) (permitting trial court to consider the "contribution to each spouse to ......

...4th DCA 2005) (providing that "an equitable distribution plan requires `specific written findings of fact' including 'findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities.'") (quoting § 61.075(3)(d), Fla....

...[2] The award, to the former husband, of a special equity interest in the parties' marital home also requires a reversal and remand. In Florida, there is a presumption that entireties real property is marital property regardless of who paid for it. § 61.075(5)(a)(5), Fla....

...A justification for disparate treatment need only comport with reason and logic, so long as the distribution does not allow one spouse to fall from prosperity to misfortune, but is grounded in basic fairness. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1204; Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542, 544 (Fla. 1985). Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, allows the court to consider "any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties when equitably distributing marital assets." The final judgment on its face appears to us to comport with reas...

...ongfully denied rehabilitative alimony, and that the trial judge erred in not recusing himself shortly before the final judgment was entered. We agree this cause should be remanded because the trial judge failed to make the fact-findings required by section 61.075(1)....

...rior to filing of the motion to disqualify. A delay in moving to disqualify a trial judge at such a late point in a proceeding places a heavy burden on the party moving to disqualify. On remand, the trial judge should reference the factors listed in section 61.075, to justify the distribution of marital assets in this case. The parties here concede that the distribution was unequal, and in the former wife's favor. Section 61.075(3) requires fact-findings to justify the distribution whether it is equal or otherwise....

...habilitative alimony, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). [2] § 61.075(1), Fla....

...While we might simply affirm on the basis that the wife agreed to the disposition, we have decided to explain why she lost her claim of special equity in the entire $70,000 proceeds. Equitable distributions of property in a dissolution of marriage are controlled by section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991). What constitutes marital and nonmarital property is specifically defined by section 61.075(5)....

...f a presumption of a gift to the wife by intermingling. Here, however, the combination of the deposit and its intermingling with other joint funds created a new and different presumption that the wife made a gift of the bequest to the husband. Under section 61.075(5)(a)3., all interspousal gifts during marriage are deemed marital property. If the wife here desired to assert a special equity in these intermingled funds to the extent of her $70,000 bequest, she had a new and different burden under section 61.075(7) to prove that no gift was intended....

...al assets * * * are presumed to be marital assets * * *. Such presumption is overcome by a showing that the assets * * * are nonmarital assets * * *."). The recent decision in Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1991), definitively construes section 61.075. Under section 61.075(7), the burden of disproving the presumption is now on the party claiming that no gift was intended. Robertson, 593 So.2d at 494. Thus, even though the insurance proceeds began as the wife's exclusive property under section 61.075(5)(b)2., the commingling made them an interspousal gift, and the property became swept under section 61.075(5)(a)3. She thus ended up with a burden under section 61.075(7) to prove that no gift was intended. Section 61.075 had the effect of displacing Ball v....

...ons. Daytona Mold pays rent to S & S, which is used to pay the mortgage on the property. Equitable Distribution The trial judge entered a lengthy written order which appears to comply substantially with the fact-finding and valuation requirements of section 61.075(1) and (3)....

...s well as other expenditures for which there is no existing asset. She points out Karl purchased a $5,200 Cadillac, obtained a $22,000 investment credit payment from S & S and spent $17,000 on flying lessons and trips to Europe. However, pursuant to section 61.075(3)(d), the trial court is directed to expressly state its rationale for distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities....

...Appellant first contends that the trial court erred when it failed to award her any portion of the household contents, including her premarital assets, in the absence of any evidence or testimony refuting her entitlement to such property. Appellant is correct. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that "the Court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities" and section 61.075(5)(b) (1991) defines nonmarital assets as "1....

...therefore fails to value or allocate, the following: (a) the husband's IRA/401K; (b) the condominium in Boca Raton; (c) the husband's IBM pension; and (d) the wife's jewelry. There is merit to the former wife's contention that, pursuant to sections 61.075(3)(a) and (b), the final judgment should have specifically addressed, by factual findings, whether these assets or any part of these assets are marital or nonmarital....

...Thus, we conclude the trial court's failure to set forth specific findings was harmless. Finally, the husband alleges error in the trial court's valuation of certain assets, contending the record lacks competent substantial evidence to support the court's valuation. We take this opportunity to reiterate that section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1995) requires the valuation of only "significant assets," as we noted in Bomwell v....

...is in the best interest of the child is sufficient under § 61.13(3), which does not require written factual findings on factors considered; whenever in ch. 61 the legislature wanted to require written factual findings, it explicitly said so, e.g., § 61.075(3),.08(1), .30(1)(a), Fla....

...the scheme of equitable distribution of assets and liabilities. However, we note that chapter 61, Florida Statutes (2005), invests trial courts with considerable discretion to craft an overall post-dissolution plan as equity and justice require. See § 61.075(1)(j), Fla....

448.00. .[1] Applying the provisions of section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2015), governing equitable

...Pinder performed and/or financed some of the renovations on this space. *653 In her first and second issues, Mrs. Pinder challenges the trial court's determination that fifty percent of the Philadelphia assets were marital property. We do not agree with the trial court's classification of these assets and reverse. Section 61.075(5)(a)1 defines marital assets as those "acquired ... during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them." Section 61.075(5)(b)1 defines nonmarital assets as those acquired before the marriage and "assets acquired......

...urt to make appropriate findings. We also disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the JMS investment account was a marital asset. [4] The undisputed evidence showed that this money came from an inheritance Mrs. Pinder received from her aunt. Section 61.075(5)(b)2 states that nonmarital assets include those acquired separately by either party by bequest, devise or descent....

...al judgment and should be stricken or reconciled on remand. [3] We note that our disposition of these issues renders moot Mr. Pinder's second issue, where he seeks a special equity in the preschool. Special equity applies to jointly held assets. See § 61.075(5)(a)5, Fla....

...4th DCA 1987) (determining trial court's omission from judgment of one item of property valued at $10,000 to be harmless error since the record showed no abuse of discretion in equitable distribution scheme). In determining the distribution of assets, section 61.075, Florida Statutes, allows the trial court to consider: (b) The economic circumstances of the parties....

...d during the marriage. It would not be equitable and just after a nine year marriage to distribute these assets in an equal distribution. (Emphasis supplied). In Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla.1991), our supreme court explained that section 61.075 creates a statutory form of equitable distribution. See § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (1995). Under the statute, the first task is to divide the parties' combined assets and liabilities into two categories: (1) marital; and (2) nonmarital. Robertson, 593 So.2d at 493; see § 61.075(3). The statute enumerates the assets and liabilities to be included within each of these two categories. Robertson, 593 So.2d at 493; see § 61.075(5). *808 Interspousal gifts during marriage are deemed marital assets. § 61.075(5)(a)3; Amato v....

...This presumption may be overcome by a showing that no gift was intended. Id. at 1245; see § 67.075(7). In Amato, the wife received proceeds as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy. 596 So.2d at 1244. Upon receipt, the proceeds were the wife's exclusive property under subsection 61.075(5)(b)2....

...parties. Id. at 1244. A presumption was thus created that the wife had made a gift of the proceeds to the husband. Id. at 1245. This court explained that "the commingling made [the proceeds] an interspousal gift, and the property became swept under section 61.075(5)(a)3." Id. The wife "thus ended up with a burden under section 61.075(7) to prove that no gift was intended." 596 So.2d at 1245. Here, the trial court found that $637,000 of the husband's premarital assets were commingled with the marital assets and became untraceable. Therefore, the premarital assets became swept under subsection 61.075(5)(a)3....

...However, the court is directed to distribute the marital assets and liabilities "in such proportions as are equitable" after considering various enumerated factors as well as any other factors "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1)....

...4th DCA 1989). The fact that an asset is determined to be an interspousal gift and then categorized as a marital asset does not mandate that the asset be split equally where an unequal split is "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1)(j)....

...the fact that the husband accumulated the key assets before the marriage and contributed to the family's lifestyle by the liquidation of the husband's premarital assets. Duration of the marriage is a factor explicitly enumerated in the statute. See § 61.075(1)(c)....

...uity and justice" between the parties. See Robertson; Romano. Therefore, the duration of the marriage should not have been relied on to deviate from an equal distribution of the parties' marital assets pursuant to the initial statutory premise of subsection 61.075(1). As for the husband's greater earned income during the marriage, subsection 61.075(1)(g) states that factors justifying an unequal distribution include: [t]he contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income or the improvement of ......

...ent of the marital assets. Here, in contrast to McMonagle and Ibanez-Vogelsang, the parties were married for almost nine years and each party made a significant contribution to the marital partnership. The wife performed services as a homemaker. See § 61.075(1)(a)....

...We do not just view the equitable distribution award in isolation; we examine the judgment as a whole in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So.2d 654, 657 (Fla.1991). The equitable distribution award and alimony award are interrelated. See § 61.075(8)....

...employed. The trial court treated Mr. Gingola's nonvested pension as a marital asset and reserved jurisdiction to resolve the parties' rights to the pension, if necessary, at an undetermined future date. Such a nonvested pension is a marital asset. § 61.075(5)(a)4., Fla.Stat....

...hase price remains the value of the stock and that one-third of the final $150,000 payment was forgiven as of the April 18, 1995, date of Final Judgment." In determining that the stock was a marital asset, the trial court applied the 1993 version of section 61.075(6), which provides that: The date for determining marital assets and liabilities and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such othe...

...an, in making an equitable distribution of marital assets, and in requiring him to pay one-half of Frances' attorney's fees and costs. The trial judge did not make express factual findings in regard to the equities between the parties as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991), which was enacted to facilitate meaningful review by the appellate court....

...The petition for dissolution in this case was filed on August 5, 1991, and the contested trial took place on December 13, 1991 and January 27, 1992. The final judgment from which this appeal by Edgar Plyler (the former husband) is brought, was rendered March 20, 1992. Thus there is no doubt but that the amendments to section 61.075(3), which require findings and valuation of marital assets in contested cases [1] applies to this case....

...The former husband was also required to pay one-half of the former wife's attorney's fees and costs. Appellant first argued on appeal that the trial court erred in selecting as the appropriate valuation date for marital assets the date the dissolution petition was filed. This is the date set by section 61.075(6), unless special circumstances unique to the particular case make another date more appropriate....

...ntended to make an equal or an unequal distribution of marital assets. That should be done, on remand. And, to justify the equitable distribution of marital assets (be it equal or unequal), the trial court should also refer to the factors set out in section 61.075(1). In my view, not all of the factors listed in section 61.075(1)(a) through (h) are relevant in each case, nor is each entitled to equal weight in all cases....

...The record shows she lacks any resources to pay them, and the majority opinion is reversing the income awards made to her below. Thus she appears to me to be a candidate for an award of appellate fees. [5] I respectfully disagree with this panel which has denied her an award of appellate fees for this proceeding. NOTES [1] Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1991) provides: (3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual f...

...All of the other marital assets were valued as of the date of separation; however, the date of valuation for the motel was set six months later. Our review of the trial court's decision in this matter is governed by an abuse of discretion standard. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's determination of the appropriate valuation date. In the fourth issue, the Husband argues that in awarding the Husband a fifty percent share of the marital assets, the trial court failed to consider the statutory factors contained in section 61.075....

...ry, or a jointly owned land trust. For the following reasons, we conclude the trial court erred. First, the trial court is required to include in the final judgment written findings setting forth the rationale for the distribution of marital assets. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...If the trial court determines that a "supportive relationship" exists, we review the trial court's decision to reduce or terminate alimony for abuse of discretion. This standard of review is the same as that used in other contexts that employ a similar analysis. For example, section 61.075, which deals with equitable distribution, requires the trial court to identify marital assets and liabilities and distribute them equitably....

...Assuming an asset or liability is determined to be marital, the trial court has broad discretion in how it distributes that asset or liability. Cory v. Cory, 536 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We can see no relevant differences between *954 the analysis required under section 61.075 and the analysis required under section 61.14(1)(b) that would dictate a different standard of review....

...Leah will, by agreement, be the primary residential parent of the three children. *1364 The legislature directs courts in dissolution proceedings to consider certain factors and "distribute between the parties the marital assets and liabilities in such proportions as are equitable." § 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...The Former Husband and the Former Wife, Thora Hoirup, were married for sixteen years and have no children together. The Former Husband was seventy-four years old on the date of the final judgment, and the Former Wife was fifty-nine years old. After consideration of the factors set forth in section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2001), the trial court made an award of equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets as follows: to the Former Wife, $211,331.60 from the proceeds of the sale of the marital home and $26,550 in tangible p...

...However, where a trial transcript or proper substitute does not appear in the record on appeal, the trial court's order must be upheld unless the order is fundamentally erroneous on its face. Bank of Va. v. Estate of Ingraham, 564 So.2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Section 61.075(1) requires that the trial court distribute marital assets and liabilities between the parties "beginning with the premise that an equal distribution should occur." Feger v....

...The marital asset that existed at the time of dissolution was a chose in action for the sale proceeds. Cf. Seither v. Seither, 779 So.2d 331, 333 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Green v. Green, 64 Md. App. 122, 494 A.2d 721 (1985), for proposition that a chose in action in a contract for stock purchase is within section 61.075(5)(a)(4)'s broad definition of marital assets)....

...While he may have not made the command decisions, the testimony indicates that he carried through with the details, such as the change of season ticketholders from the Orange Bowl to Joe Robbie Stadium. Certainly, his efforts contributed to the franchise and thus its overall success. Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1993), should not be construed so narrowly as to preclude an interest in a closely held family corporation from being considered a marital asset, where the spouse is employed full-time in its endeavors but is not the key decision-maker....

...The circuit court did not assign a value to either the taxes or the improvements. The court subsequently divided the property equally between the parties. In so doing, the circuit court erred. Nonmarital assets include "assets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise or descent." § 61.075(5)(b)(2), Fla....

..."The enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both," is considered a marital asset. § 61.075(5)(a)(2), Fla....

...Accordingly, to make an award for the enhancement in value and appreciation of a nonmarital asset, the court must make specific findings as to the value of such enhancement and appreciation during the marriage, as well as which portion of that enhanced value is attributable to marital funds and labor. See id.; see also § 61.075(3)(b), Fla....

...The circuit court's decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence and is affirmed. Conclusion The record reveals scrivener's errors and miscalculations contained in the circuit court's amended final judgment of dissolution *1240 of marriage. Additionally, the circuit court incorrectly applied section 61.075(5)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, to former wife's inherited property....

...erous occasions. After the parties separated, the husband transferred all of the securities including the Nokia stock that had once been the wife's pre-marital asset and almost all of the cash into an account in his name only, Schwab Account # 1107. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2003), controls equitable distribution of property in a divorce action. Section 61.075(5)(b)2. specifies that non-marital assets include "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent...." Section 61.075(5)(a)3....

...v. Archer, 712 So.2d 1198, 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), explained that the creation and maintenance of a joint tenancy in personal property is not itself enough to establish the presumption that a gift was thereby intended. This Court noted that while section 61.075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes (1997) presumes a gift is established when a tenancy by the entireties is created *183 by a spouse with his or her separate real property, the statute creates no such presumption insofar as personal property is concerned....

...ly to real property. The former wife points out that the disparate treatment between real and personal property was more recently addressed in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates, 780 So.2d 45 (Fla.2001). That case did not involve application of section 61.075(5)(a)5, but rather concerned the right of a creditor to garnish bank accounts jointly held by husband and wife....

...Beal Bank indicates that the common law governing title to jointly owned property by married persons should be the same insofar as creditors rights are concerned, irrespective of whether the property is real or personal in nature. Archer, which involved section 61.075 governing dissolution of marriage *184 actions, recognizes a distinction. This case is governed by section 61.075 and Archer and it is for the legislature to change the law in this area if it so desires....

...With respect to equitable distribution, the trial court is required to identify and value the significant marital assets and designate which spouse is entitled to each asset; similarly, the trial court is required to identify the marital liabilities and designate which spouse is responsible for each liability. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...00...."). [7] The recipient also has annual investment income of $23,000. [8] See § 61.16, Fla. Stat. (2001). [9] On the other hand, with the payor's income in the range well above $200,000, the amount actually awarded seems to me miserly. [10] Cf. § 61.075(1), Fla....

...Although it divided the parties' personal and intangible assets roughly in half, it allowed Doreen to keep her one-half of the marital residence valued at $55,000.00, without making a compensating award to John. An equal division of marital assets is *1078 presumptively proper under section 61.075 and thus an unequal distribution must be justified by findings made by the court....

...the asset which may be more or less equally divided should be limited to the amount it increased during the marriage or to which the wife contributed, see Crapps v. Crapps, 501 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), review denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1987); § 61.075(3)(a)(2), Fla....

...In all other respects, I agree without qualification with Judge BASKIN's opinion. NOTES [1] The trial court did not include the husband's medical practice, valued between $600,000 and $800,000, as a marital asset. [2] We note that had this case been filed after October 1, 1988, it would have fallen within the purview of section 61.075(3)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...[2] Second, the trial court used December 31, 1988, as the date of valuation of the property, although that is not the date of filing of the petition, the hearing date, nor the date of a valid settlement agreement between the parties, and failed to provide any reason in the final judgment for the use of this date. Cf. § 61.075(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Although this case is not governed by section 61.075(4) because the petition was filed prior to October 1, 1988, that section's effective date, [3] the valuation dates required to be used before enactment of this statute had been either the petition filing date or the hearing date in cas...

...litative alimony. He appeals; she does not. His principal issue on appeal is that the wife should not have been given the exclusive use and occupancy of the house because the court found it to be his separate property by a non-interspousal gift. See § 61.075(5)(b)(2), Fla....

...not available for disposition in a dissolution proceeding." He asks that we answer the question we left unanswered in Gregg v. Gregg, 623 So.2d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), by concluding that the court may not so dispose of one party's personal assets. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that: "the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets * * *, and in distributing the marital assets * * * between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that t...

...al/nonmarital designation for each asset. As a result, the husband argues, this court is unable to engage in meaningful review of the trial court's equitable distribution award. Effective July 1, 1991, the legislature added subsection (3) to Chapter 61.075, Florida Statutes: (3) ......

...Based on the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment, except as to the dissolution of marriage, and remand with instructions to the trial court to include specific values and marital/nonmarital designations in its equitable distribution of the assets as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes....

...equired or contemplated ends the litigation between the parties. It is truly a final judgment. Benestad v. Benestad, 459 So.2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In dissolution of marriage actions, the property division of a judgment is self-executing in that section 61.075(2), Florida Statutes (1989), states as follows: (2) The judgment distributing assets shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release, or acquisition which is recorded in the county where the propert...

...She raises two issues: (1) whether the amount of permanent periodic alimony awarded by the trial court is so inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion; and (2) whether the trial court's distribution of marital assets and liabilities contravenes section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), thereby shortchanging the wife....

...Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to reach the wife's second issue. However, for the benefit of the trial court, we note that "marital assets" include all "[a]ssets acquired ... during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them." § 61.075(3)(a)1., Fla....

...The equitable distribution statute provides that in dividing marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the trial court may consider "[t]he desirability of retaining the marital home as a residence for any dependent child of the marriage, or any other party." § 61.075(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Thomas's living expenses were reduced by that sum, and the statute mandated its inclusion in her gross income. Id. at 824. Mrs. Thomas's argument that she had been awarded occupancy of the former marital residence pursuant to the trial court's authority under the equitable distribution statute was unavailing, in that section 61.075(1)(h) "does not alter the operation of section 61.30(2)(a)." See id....

...We agree with the appellant's position on this issue. According to the equitable distribution statute, the trial court "must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors." § 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...butions to the marriage ( e.g., homemaking and providing care and education for the child(ren)) and "to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income," as well as "[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1)(a), (g) & (j). Absent the entry and filing of a stipulation and agreement, any distribution must be supported by factual findings based on competent substantial evidence with reference to the enumerated factors in statutory subsection (1). See § 61.075(3)....

...Competent substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court's finding that the former marital residence is a "marital asset," which is defined to include assets acquired during the marriage "individually by either spouse or jointly by them." § 61.075(5)(a)1....

...by the entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset. If, in any case, a party makes a claim to the contrary, the burden of proof shall be on the party asserting the claim for a special equity. § 61.075(5)(a)5....

...It is important to note that this difference in the character of such an award is not the ultimate determinant of whether it is to be classified as marital or nonmarital. Rather, the purpose of determining the character of the award is to assess how much of the asset, if any, is the product of marital labor. See § 61.075(5)(a), Fla....

...On the other hand, an award given as an incentive for future service would be marital only to the extent that the service is thereafter performed before the end of the marriage. In either case, the trial court is charged with identifying and valuing the portion of the award that constitutes a marital asset. See § 61.075(3)(b)....

...ded in the equitable distribution scheme and with the court's method of distributing these assets. On the first question, Ingrid argues that the trial court erred by valuing the stock on the petition filing date rather than on the date of trial. See § 61.075(6) (stating that the date for determining the value of marital assets is the date "the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances")....

...J. 62, 67 (May 1999). This proposition may be viewed as the flipside to the rule that the amount of a nonmarital asset's passive appreciation is a nonmarital asset, but the amount of a nonmarital asset's active appreciation is a marital asset. See § 61.075(5)(a)(2); Straley v....

...Also, the parties' financial needs might diverge in the future, thus, for instance, creating the possibility that Ingrid might need to have Tim sell stock at a time when his status as an insider or other SEC-imposed restrictions prevent him from doing so. Section 61.075(1)(f) requires an equitable distribution scheme to take into account "[t]he desirability of retaining any asset, including an interest in a business, corporation, or professional practice, intact and free from any claim or interference...

...The marital efforts here have resulted in a legal career culminating in an executive position that includes a pension benefit subject to certain contingencies. Thus, there is a distributable marital component to the pension benefit even though it is neither vested nor matured at this time. See §§ 61.075(5)(a)(4), 61.076(1) (providing that all nonvested retirement or pension benefits accrued during the marriage constitute a marital asset); Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d at 266-67 (rejecting contention that pension cannot be marital asset when there are contingencies and problems in valuation); Gingola v....

...becomes the interplay between the Pension Plan's statutory anti-alienation provision (Section 8 of the 1937 legislation) and the more recently passed legislation in Chapters 61 and 222, Florida Statutes. This Court expressly concludes that Sections 61.075, 61.076, and 222.21, Florida Statutes, implicitly repealed Section 8 of Chapter 18610 (1937), Special Acts of the Legislature of the State of Florida (the City's pension anti-alienation provision) at least to the extent so as to permit the spo...

...In response, Anna concedes that government pension plans are exempt from the federal law in which the QDRO was created. However, she insists that the trial court correctly concluded that the anti-alienation clause contained in the City's Pension Plan was repealed by implication by the subsequent passage of sections 61.075, 61.076 and 222.21, Florida Statutes....

...islative intent to do so. E.g., Jackson v. Consolidated Government, City of Jacksonville, 225 So.2d 497 (Fla. 1969). Anna argues that the anti-alienation clause of the City's Pension Plan was impliedly repealed by the subsequent adoption of sections 61.075, 61.076 and 222.21, Florida Statutes....

...(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). There is certainly nothing about this statute which is so irreconcilable with the anti-alienation clause of the City's Pension Plan as to manifest a clear legislative intent to repeal that clause. To the extent relevant here, section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), merely provides that all interests in retirement or pension plans (whether vested or not) which accrued during the marriage are marital assets subject to equitable distribution....

...Adkins, 650 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The loan was therefore made from marital assets. Although the loan was made prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution, the amount receivable would still be a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1995), requires specific written findings of fact as to identification of nonmarital and marital assets, valuation of significant marital assets, designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset, and ot...

...quitable distribution. The court could, however, still consider the loan as a factor in equitable distribution if it found the loan constituted intentional dissipation or waste of a marital asset within two years prior to the filing of the petition. § 61.075(1)(i), Fla....

...The record shows that the wife opened the SouthTrust Bank account eight days after the valuation date with funds obtained from the Schwab account. The trial court has the discretion to use a valuation date it finds "just and equitable under the circumstances" and may even give different assets different valuation dates. § 61.075(6), Fla....

...d during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation and insurance plans and programs are marital assets subject to equitable distribution. See Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986). Moreover, section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, requires specific written findings of fact as to identification of marital and nonmarital assets and as to the value and allocation of marital assets....

...ard of attorney's fees to Francis. The trial judge made findings concerning the nature and value of the parties' marital and nonmarital assets, and awarded the marital assets equally to each party. However, it did not reference the factors listed in section 61.075(1), [1] which should be used in any contested case to justify any equitable distribution of marital *374 assets, fifty-fifty or otherwise....

...Peggy had $60,000 in premarital assets, in which she retained the sole interest. The trial judge found Francis intended to make a gift to Peggy of one-half of his premarital assets. He concluded that Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1991) and § 61.075(5)(a)5 were controlling, and that they mandate an equal split of these gifted assets. We think that is a misconception of both Robertson and section 61.075(5)(a)5....

...Accordingly, we reverse the judgment appealed, including the award of attorney's fees, so that the trial judge may revisit this case in its totality. In making an equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets, the trial judge should reference the relevant factors set forth in section 61.075(1). [5] REVERSED and REMANDED. DIAMANTIS, J., and WHITE, A.B., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 61.075 provides: (a) The contribution to the marriage by each spouse, including contributions to the care and education of the children and services as homemaker....

...nt child to remain in the marital home; and, if not, whether other equities would be served by giving any other party exclusive use and possession of the marital home. (i) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. [2] § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (1991). [3] See Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1991) and section 61.075(5)(a)5, which provides: All real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset....

...After the parties remarried, the $50,000 used to purchase the residence in Florida came from Santiago's funds. He testified its source was a workers' compensation settlement. However, he placed the title to the house in the parties' joint names, thereby creating a presumption of a gift to Gloria. See § 61.075(5)(a)5.; Robertson v....

...DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] At the trial, Gloria was obviously shaken by this testimony and wanted to know what Santiago had done to Yvonne. The court would not let Yvonne answer. [2] Baird v. Baird, 696 So.2d 844, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). [3] Section 61.075(1) provides that a 50-50 distribution is to be made. [4] § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla.1991); Herrera v. Herrera, 673 So.2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). [5] § 61.075(1) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Reyes v. Reyes, 714 So.2d 646, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 709 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Herrera v. Herrera, 673 So.2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). [6] § 61.075(1)(i); Beers v....

...record. The trial court erred in failing to make any specific findings concerning the parties' assets or to characterize them. It must include in the final judgment written findings setting forth its rationale for the distribution of marital assets. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Kelly, 583 So.2d 667 (Fla.1991). See id. at 668; Cooper, 760 So.2d at 1049. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the wife the exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home; such an award is proper as an incident of child support. See § 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

...The distribution scheme in the instant case is similar. As in Collinsworth, "the entire distribution of assets must be reversed and this case remanded with directions to reconsider the equitable distribution scheme in light of the factors set forth in section 61.075, and to make the written findings required by subsection 61.075(3) that justify an unequal distribution of marital assets." Id....

...See Clawson v. Clawson, 54 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1951). [1] In such an estate, both parties are obligated for the whole of any expenses or debt on the property (including mortgage payments and insurance). Marsh v. London, 181 So.2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes, in respect to a tenancy by the entireties, states, All real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset....

...interest in these assets to her former husband. We agree with the trial judge that a presumption of a gift is established when a tenancy by the entireties is created by a spouse with his or her separate real property. This presumption is created by section 61.075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...We partially agree with the trial court that a presumption of a gift also arose as to the CMA account. The presumption arose, however, only as to those assets in the CMA account which became commingled with marital funds. The presumption of a gift arising in section 61.075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes, clearly extends only to real property. Chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes does not contain a similar presumption for personal property. Section 61.075(5)(b)2 describes as non-marital assets, those assets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift....

...it becomes incapable of being specifically identified as the earlier separate property, such property is properly categorized as marital. The commingling of the marital and non-marital property creates a presumption, similar to the one set forth in section 61.075(5)(a)5 for real property, that a gift of one-half of the jointly held funds was made to the other spouse....

...ees. We affirm the dissolution of the parties' marriage and the denial of alimony, but reverse the award of equitable distribution and the denial of attorneys' fees, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, requires a trial court to make written factual findings when determining the equitable distribution of property in a dissolution of marriage. These factual findings required by section 61.075(3) are necessary in order to facilitate effective appellate review of the trial court's property distribution scheme....

...4th DCA 1993); cf. Maddox v. Maddox, 750 So.2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ("The final judgment may offer support for the trial court's equitable distribution even though the relevant findings are not properly labeled as finding of fact pursuant to section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1997).") The present order is not amenable to such analysis....

...For these reasons, I join in the judgment of the court, but reiterate the general application of the harmless error test in these cases. The existence of such a test on review should never encourage trial courts to craft final judgments of dissolution that do not meet the requirements of section 61.075: The obligation to make findings may well be viewed as burdensome by some trial judges. Nevertheless, such a requirement serves the laudatory goals of avoiding arbitrary outcomes and facilitating efficient appellate review. Findings of fact are also required in cases of equitable distribution of marital assets under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997). Of note, the equitable distribution statute recognizes that such findings are necessary not only to facilitate review, but also "to advise the parties . . . of the trial court's rationale. . . ." § 61.075(3)(d), Fla....

...Neither party was awarded alimony. Reviewing the final judgment as a whole, we find an abuse of discretion by the trial court requiring reversal and remand for reconsideration of the equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities. See section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989); Hamlet v....

...Wife's gross monthly income should be determined by dividing her annual income by twelve months. Wife alleged at trial that her retirement benefits are not vested because she has not worked a sufficient period of time in the Duval County school system. Sections 61.075(3)(a)(4) and 61.076(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provide nonetheless that "[a]ll vested and nonvested benefits" accrued during the marriage in pension and other retirement plans are marital assets subject to equitable distribution....

...It is the responsibility of counsel to present the trial court with "sufficient, detailed evidence concerning such plans" so that it can accomplish a fair distribution. Nelson v. Nelson, 588 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The trial court cannot meet its burden, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), and the related decisions, if the parties fail to provide such information as is required to support the distinction between marital and nonmarital assets and to determine proper valuations....

...We reverse that part of the final judgment awarding the parties their own respective retirement benefits and remand for additional evidence and appropriate findings of fact consistent with our holdings in Moon, DeLoach and Huntley v. Huntley, 578 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989), requires the trial court to "set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities" and to "distribute between the parties the marital assets and liabilities in such proportions as are eq...

...estified that the gift was made with the parties' impending marriage in February 1976 in mind. Further, in October 1984, the parties signed a quit-claim deed transferring title in the marital home and surrounding 5.28 acres to both Husband and Wife. Section 61.075(3)(a)(5), Florida Statutes (1989) provides: All real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset....

...nal judgment includes no specific finding as to whether the marital home and property are marital or nonmarital *234 assets. We reverse that portion of the final judgment dealing with the marital home and property and remand for findings pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), that will permit meaningful appellate review....

fashioning an equitable distribution under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2009), the trial court set

...Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So.3d 288, 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citations omitted). The trial court was permitted to consider the husband's intentional waste or depletion of marital assets and other factors to do equity and justice between the parties. See § 61.075(1)(i), (j), Fla....

...The trial court may have believed the wife's argument that the husband depleted closer to $188,000 and that the husband had other property in Puerto Rico. These factors may have justified the further unequal distribution of assets. But the trial court did not make any specific findings to this effect. See § 61.075(3) ("The distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include specific written findings of fact as to....

...Williams, of Williams & Holz, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee. BROWNING, J. Eddy Lafaille, the former husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage on the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion by making an inequitable distribution of assets and liabilities, contrary to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2001); and by imputing income to him for purposes of determining the parties' respective child-support obligations under section 61.30, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...ild Support." In its judgment, the trial court found the parties had "effectively separated" on a date prior to the commencement of the dissolution, but did not have a valid separation agreement at the time of separation. The court acknowledged that section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2003), provides the cut-off date for determining the marital assets and liabilities, but found it had some discretion to value the property in a just and equitable manner based upon the circumstances....

...ion of assets and liabilities. The former husband argues the court erroneously determined the date. He also suggests there are errors in the order concerning the Pennsylvania property and the valuation of the former husband's pension plan. We agree. Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2003), provides a bright line rule for setting the date to be used in determining the marital classification of assets and liabilities....

...rital or non-marital. The statute provides "[t]he date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances." See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...change in the property's value due to non-marital labor or efforts cannot be distributed, see Claughton v. Claughton, 625 So.2d 853, 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to choose the latter date. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...nmarital portions of an asset are not subject to equitable distribution. See Blase v. Blase, 704 So.2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Hargrave v. Hargrave, 728 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Bain v. Bain, 553 So.2d 1389, 1391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); see also § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES Although a trial court has broad discretion in attempting to achieve an equitable allocation of marital assets and liabilities, Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So.2d 654 (Fla.1991), the guiding light illuminating a trial judge's course of direction emanates from section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1993), which sets forth the relevant factors to be considered. The record below supports the trial court's assignment of value and distribution of assets and liabilities in accordance with section 61.075(1)....

individual valuation of significant marital assets. See § 61.075(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2013); Lift v. Lift, 1 So.3d

...Based on this belief, Daniel asserted that he was entitled to retain the house, titled in his name. This case presents an unusual factual scenario. The parties here are not disputing the treatment of property held as a tenancy by the entireties, see § 61.075(3)(a)5, Fla....

...uring the course of the marital litigation that spanned five years. When a trial court makes an equitable distribution award, it must provide specific factual findings that identify and distinguish the marital assets from the non-marital assets. See § 61.075(3) (requiring *302 that "any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence"); see also Staton v. Staton, 710 So.2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, before a trial court can make these determinations, it must establish a cut-off date, in accordance with section 61.075(6), for determining whether assets and liabilities should be classified as marital. See § 61.075(6) (stating that the cut-off date "is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage"). Moreover, a trial court must also select a valuation date for the marital assets pursuant to section 61.075(6), which provides that the date for determining the value of the marital assets "is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances." In the present case, the trial court did not select a cut-of...

...Because the trial court's conclusion is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, this portion of the equitable distribution is also flawed. Therefore, we reverse the portion of the final judgment concerning the equitable distribution. On remand, pursuant to section 61.075(6), the trial court must establish a cut-off date for determining which assets should be classified as marital and must select a valuation date for determining the value of the marital assets....

...ions and surcharge the Wife the amount of $44,548.30. In the alternative, the trial court may recalculate the amount of the surcharge to the Wife and justify its determination of the surcharge amount with specific findings of fact in compliance with section 61.075(3)....

...Section 61.14 makes clear that only alimony and child support, or child custody, or child visitation may be modified after final judgment. *454 In other words, under chapter 61 the property distribution is conclusive with the final judgment. A property distribution under section 61.075 may not be modified even if the needs of a party change after the judgment.") disapproved on other grounds, Bane v....

...The Former Husband asserts that the trial court failed to make the findings required by law, including individual valuation of significant assets and the identification of the marital liabilities and designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...ANALYSIS The husband asserts that the petition for dissolution was filed one day before Lucky Star was incorporated and two weeks before the husband signed the licensing agreement for marketing "Scratch Be Gone." Based on that assertion, he argues that Lucky Star was not a marital asset under section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1999), and, therefore, not subject to equitable distribution....

...The wife responds that even though the above dates are accurate, the husband's attempt to defraud her of her share of Lucky Star was not condoned by the trial court and the trial court ignored the scheme because the right to begin shooting a commercial existed in September 1999. Section 61.075(6) provides: (6) The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date...

...The trial court considered all this evidence and concluded that Lucky Star was a marital asset. The husband insists that because Lucky Star was not incorporated until after the date of filing, it did not exist before the date of filing and could not be considered a marital asset. As noted above, section 61.075(6) was amended on May 14, 1994, to establish a "cut-off" date for determining assets and liabilities that can be identified or classified as marital assets and marital liabilities....

...blished by such agreement or (3) the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. In the instant case, the only operative date is November 16, 1999, the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution. Prior to the amendment of section 61.075(6), there was no such cut-off date and the trial court could use any other date that it determined, in its discretion, was just and equitable under all the circumstances of the case....

...wife an equitable interest in the house located in Corpus Christi, Texas. By definition, the Corpus Christi house owned by the husband is a nonmarital asset because he bought it with his own funds in 1981 prior to the parties' marriage in 1993. See § 61.075(5)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1999). That statute also provides that "[a]ll income derived from non-marital assets during the marriage unless the income was treated, used, or relied upon by the parties as a marital asset" is a nonmarital asset. See § 61.075(5)(b)3, Fla. Stat. (1999). Section 61.075(5)(a)2 also provides that marital assets include "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital *504 assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure th...

...ditional evidence that may be presented and for reconsideration of the equitable distribution scheme. STEVENSON, J., concurs. GROSS, J., concurs specially with opinion. GROSS, J., concurring specially. I write to emphasize that the 1994 amendment to section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes "changed the cut-off date for determining the nature of assets and liabilities as marital or nonmarital." McHugh v....

...The current statute establishes a bright line rule for the identification of marital assets; in the absence of a "valid separation agreement," the "cut-off date for determining" marital assets is "the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage." § 61.075(6), *505 Fla....

...t which, the expert testified, was continuing to decline at the time of trial. This record contains neither findings of fact nor competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's valuation of the marital home, both of which are required by section 61.075(3)....

...such further evidence as the court may find necessary. SHIVERS and WOLF, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The life sentence was reversed, based on evidentiary error, after entry of the judgment on appeal. Bell v. State, 569 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). [2] Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989) sets forth the relevant factors for the trial court to consider in equitable distribution.

apart to each spouse his or her nonmarital assets. § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). The parties agree that

...In so doing, the legislature created the equitable distribution statute, and also amended the statute governing alimony. The current version of the equitable distribution statute [8] provides that a pension benefit accrued during the marriage is a marital asset. § 61.075(5)(a)4., Fla Stat....

...of the marital assets and liabilities without regard to alimony for either party. After the determination of an equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities, the *1092 court shall consider whether a judgment of alimony shall be made. § 61.075(8), Fla....

...ion statute justify departure from 16 years of established precedent. The plain language of the statute, basic canons of interpretation, and preexisting principles of matrimonial law, compel a contrary conclusion. The equitable distribution statute, Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2001), is in *1095 complete accord with Diffenderfer and its progeny, including Hollinger and Waldman. The statute provides that in initial dissolution proceedings a trial court is to consider pension benefits as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. § 61.075(5)(a)4., Fla. Stat. (2001). After assets are equitably distributed, the trial court is to consider whether alimony should be awarded. § 61.075(8), Fla....

...Although the former husband raises several issues on appeal dealing with the equitable distribution of marital assets, we find no error. The trial court justified its distribution of marital assets and liabilities with factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence and did not abuse its discretion. § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat....

...His rulings-are consistent with the judicial requirements enunciated by the Supreme Court in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). The judge entered both oral and written findings as to the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Thomas's living expenses were reduced by that sum, and the statute mandated its inclusion in her gross income. Mrs. Thomas's argument that she was awarded occupancy of the home pursuant to the court's authority under the equitable distribution statute is unavailing. Section 61.075(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1995), does provide that when dividing the parties' assets, the court may consider the desirability of retaining and awarding exclusive possession of the marital home as a residence for any dependent child....

..." The court ordered distribution of the marital assets accordingly. Unfortunately, the court failed to consider certain statutory factors in making the distribution. The trial court's failure to address and reference the factors mandated by sections 61.075(1)(a)-(i) and 3(d), Florida Statutes (1991) is reversible error....

...McMonagle v. McMonagle, 617 So.2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In McMonagle, the trial court made the findings of fact required concerning the nature and value of the parties' marital and non-marital assets, however, it did not reference the factors listed in section 61.075(1)....

...at 373-374 (footnote omitted). This court noted, in reversing, that the statute does not require an equal split of marital assets between parties, but rather that an equitable distribution of assets *1084 should be made with reference to the relevant factors set forth in section 61.075(1)....

...The marriage lasted only four years, during which time the parties carefully kept their assets separated. Nothing about the marital history indicates that a fifty-fifty split could be considered equitable. On remand, the trial court shall consider the factors set forth in section 61.075(1) and equitably distribute the marital assets....

...*1085 The office building is a non-marital asset because it was owned by the husband prior to the marriage. Income from non-marital assets received during the marriage is also non-marital unless the income was treated, used or relied upon by the parties as a marital asset. Section 61.075(5)(b)3, Fla....

...age payments on the office building was actually marital money and in awarding the wife one-half the amount paid on the mortgage ($50,978). In summary, this case is remanded to the trial court for consideration of the factors mandated by subsections 61.075(1)(a)-(i) in making an appropriate division of marital assets....

...SHARP, J., concurs specially, with opinion. W. SHARP, Judge, concurring specially. I agree with the result in this case. Prior precedent from this court [1] requires us to remand to the trial court to address and reference the appropriate factors listed in section 61.075(1)(a) — (i) and (3)(d), plus any other circumstances not specifically listed in the statute which may be relevant in this particular case, to justify the equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets....

...Pearce, 626 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Cortez v. Cortez, 625 So.2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); McMonagle v. McMonagle, 617 So.2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). [2] § 61.075, Fla....

...The trial court did not abuse its discretion in making this award. See Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989). However, we reverse that portion of the second amended final judgment relating to the equitable distribution of the parties' assets because the trial court failed to comply with section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1997), in setting forth its findings....

...Because of this error, upon remand the trial court must also reconsider the award of permanent periodic alimony. In fashioning an equitable distribution scheme, the trial court is required to set apart to each spouse his or her non-marital assets and liabilities because those are not subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...less equitable factors compel a different result. See Robertson, 593 So.2d at 493; Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The final distribution must be supported by factual findings based on substantial competent evidence. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...The trial court did not distribute the parties' household furnishings, other than the husband's bureau, or the joint checking account. The trial court never identified or set apart the parties' nonmarital assets prior to distribution as required by section 61.075(1)....

...The failure to identify and value the marital assets also constitutes reversible error. While the trial court has broad discretion in fashioning an equitable distribution scheme, the trial court must support its *540 distribution with specific factual findings. See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...It is apparent that the trial judge probably used the date of trial as the focal date for determining marital assets and their valuations. This is a matter within his judicial discretion, Perlmutter v. Perlmutter, 523 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), as the case was tried prior to the effective date of section 61.075, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both;" . . . § 61.075(5)(a)1-2., Fla....

...The trial court's initial task of identifying marital assets and liabilities and *194 distributing them equitably involves considering the evidence and making findings. The equitable distribution statute contemplates that the trial court will make adequate findings of fact to explain and justify its rulings. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...ying the marital residence as a nonmarital asset and awarding shared parental responsibility, REMAND with instructions to the trial court to make specific findings explaining these rulings, and AFFIRM the judgment in all other respects. We note that section 61.075(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2005), allows the trial court to consider "[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties" in fashioning an equitable distribution....

...nding. Indeed, appellee concedes the trial court erred in this regard. [1] We further find the trial court erred in determining that the tax lien incurred as a result of the former husband's failed business venture is not a marital debt. Pursuant to section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, "the court must begin with the premise that the distribution [of marital assets and liabilities] should be equal, unless there is justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors." One of the factors for consideration is "[t]he contribution of each spouse to the... incurring of liabilities." See § 61.075(1)(g), Fla.Stat....

...Her financial affidavit opined that the value of the townhouse was $595,000. When it set forth the division of marital assets in the final judgment, the trial court assigned a value of $912,000 to the townhouse. The trial court's valuation of marital assets must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...he date of the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage (April 11, 2001) would generally be used. However, the trial court in its discretion may use the "date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances." § 61.075(6)....

filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage.” § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2009). Assets and liabilities

...In light of these reclassifications, we decided not to reach the issue of alimony, instead remanding the case so the trial court could "revisit the monetary awards in their totality." Id. at 608. In the judgment on remand, the trial court listed the factors for equitable distribution found in section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2007), and made findings regarding each factor....

...alimony award. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION A trial court's ruling on equitable distribution is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Boutwell v. Adams, 920 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Christ v. Christ, 854 So.2d 244, 246-247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2007), sets out the governing criteria for equitable distribution. Its premise is "that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors." § 61.075(1), Fla....

...When a trial court uses this factor to justify unequal distribution, it must first "determine if it would be in the best interest of the dependent child to remain in the marital home; and, if not, whether other equities would be served by giving any other party exclusive use and possession of the marital home." § 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

...h to include equitable distribution. The equitable distribution statute itself says, "After the determination of an equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities, the court shall consider whether a judgment for alimony shall be made." § 61.075(8), Fla....

...Robert Krafchuk timely filed a notice of appeal on July 5, 2000. On September 19, 2000, the trial judge entered an order on attorney's fees requiring the wife to pay fifty percent of the husband's attorney's fees. Robert Krafchuk appeals the attorney's fees award as well. Equitable Distribution Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1999), [2] sets forth the criteria to be considered *379 in awarding equitable marital distribution of assets and liabilities. Undoubtedly, this case presented a unique set of circumstances for the trial judge. But, the trial judge carefully went through the criteria set forth in section 61.075(1), giving his justifications for the distribution in favor of the wife. One of the first issues which the trial judge had to decide was what date to use for determining marital assets and liabilities. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes, [3] he chose July 15, 1999, the date that the husband filed his petition for dissolution of marriage....

...5) annuity and cash value of life insurance—$31,446; and (6) two money market accounts in trust for children— $8,000. The wife was assigned $14,100 in marital debts. The husband received his IRA—$26,000 and furniture and personalty of $2,500. [2] Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, provides: (1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, or in a proceeding for disposition of assets following a dissolut...

...(i) The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition. (j) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. [3] Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid...

...ributed. *478 Haydu v. Haydu, 591 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). For the benefit of the parties and the trial court on remand, we note that nonvested, as well as vested, retirement benefits which accrue during the marriage constitute marital assets. § 61.075(3)(a)4., Fla....

...orpus should be treated exclusively as the husband's separate property. We disagree. Under the equitable distribution statute, marital assets include "[a]ssets acquired... . during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them... ." § 61.075(5)(a)(1), Fla....

...The statute also states, "All assets acquired ... by either spouse subsequent to the date of the marriage and not specifically established as nonmarital assets ... are presumed to be marital assets... . Such presumption is overcome by a showing that the assets ... are nonmarital assets... ." Id. § 61.075(7)....

...resumptively marital assets. In order to overcome that presumption, the burden was on the husband to show that he was entitled to a special equity in the trust corpus under one or another of the tests set forth in the equitable distribution statute. § 61.075(7), Fla....

...l, and the burden is on the husband to show the contrary. Under the equitable distribution statute, nonmarital assets include "[a]ssets acquired ... by either party prior to the marriage, and assets acquired ... in exchange for such assets... ." Id. § 61.075(5)(b)(1)....

...the John Heinrich Trust. Under the equitable distribution statute, nonmarital assets include "[a]ll income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage unless the income was treated, used, or relied upon by the parties as a marital asset. ..." § 61.075(5)(b)(3) (emphasis added)....

...Under the equitable distribution statute, marital assets include "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both... ." Id. § 61.075(5)(a)(2) (emphasis added)....

...However, the trial testimony indicated that the consideration came from multiple sources, some of which appear to have been marital funds. (Tr. 117-18). The husband is entitled to a special equity in the Melbourne residence to the extent that he clearly shows that the consideration came from a nonmarital asset. See § 61.075(5)(b)(1), Fla....

...Basham, 541 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Walser v. Walser, 473 So.2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Terreros v. Terreros, 531 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). To begin with, the rule of decision in the present case is supplied by the equitable distribution statute, § 61.075, Fla....

...tively marital property. However, under the equitable distribution statute, a party can establish a special equity where, inter alia, an asset has been acquired prior to the marriage or where an asset has been acquired in exchange for such an asset. § 61.075(5)(b)(1), Fla....

...usband from establishing a special equity if the husband can make the showing set forth in the equitable distribution statute, i.e., the asset (a specific security) was acquired before the marriage or was acquired in exchange for a nonmarital asset. § 61.075(5)(b)(1), Fla....

...(1993); § 61.08(3), Fla. Stat. (1993). As to the award of wife's attorney's fees, we find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm. Canakaris. We reverse the equitable distribution of property because the court failed to follow the statutory requirements. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1993), requires the trial court to set apart to each spouse his or her nonmarital assets and liabilities before making an equitable distribution of the marital assets....

...Rather, the final judgment simply makes each party responsible for half of these unidentified debts. The Wife contends that the trial court erred by distributing the debts associated with Multoplex without specifically identifying those debts. We agree. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2002), requires the trial court to make specific written findings identifying marital liabilities and which spouse shall be responsible for them....

...or properties." Not only does the final judgment not identify these debts, it does not even specifically limit its ruling to those debts incurred during the marriage. Thus, this portion of the final judgment fails to comport with the requirements of section 61.075(3)....

...some trial judges. Nevertheless, such a requirement serves the laudatory goals of avoiding arbitrary outcomes and facilitating efficient appellate review. Findings of fact are also required in cases of equitable distribution of marital assets under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997). Of note, the equitable distribution statute recognizes that such findings are necessary not only to facilitate review, but also "to advise the parties ... of the trial court's rationale ...." § 61.075(3)(d), Fla....

...By definition, "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both," is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...t he used marital funds to maintain and upkeep at least two of them; and that he maintained and, in some instances, made improvements to the rest of the properties, the wife was entitled to distribution of the enhanced value of these assets. [2] See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...nsel representing the husband. NOTES [1] The husband is also a United States citizen. [2] The testimony was that at least one of the properties was acquired after the marriage and, thus, by definition was a marital asset subject to distribution. See § 61.075(5)(a), Fla....

...Alpert, 886 So.2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review denied, 901 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2005). In fashioning an equitable distribution, a court is required to make specific written findings of fact that identify, classify, value, and distribute the parties' assets and liabilities. § 61.075(3)....

...rty. This was error. The husband's future earning ability is not an "asset" for purposes of equitable distribution. See Hallman v. Hallman, 575 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Severs v. Severs, 426 So.2d 992, 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Pursuant to section 61.075(5)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1991), "marital" assets are only those that are acquired "during the marriage." "[M]arital property rights cannot inure in property acquired after a judgment of dissolution of marriage." Reynolds v....

...Regarding the characterization of the timber income, the trial court classified this as a marital asset based on its belief that the parties' reliance on the income received during their marriage changed the nature of the income accruing in the future, after the marriage. Section 61.075(5)(b)3 states that nonmarital assets include "all income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage unless the income was treated, used or relied upon by the parties as a marital asset." (emphasis added)....

...Even if the use of the nonmarital income for marital purposes during the marriage converts it to marital income, the future stream of income from a nonmarital asset is not a marital asset after the marriage is dissolved. As we stated above, in regard to the husband's future salary, pursuant to section 61.075(5)(a)(1), the only assets subject to equitable distribution are those acquired "during the marriage." As such, the wife's future timber income is nonmarital, and the husband is not entitled to any portion of it. See also Cobb v. Cobb, 107 N.C.App. 382, 420 S.E.2d 212 (1992)(future timber income not vested property right). The trial court characterized the timberland as nonmarital since the wife inherited the property prior to the marriage. See § 61.075(5)(b); Macaluso v....

...for timber replanting. Other checks were written to the wife's brother, but they do not indicate the purpose for which they were written. However, the husband testified that over their twenty-four year marriage he paid $70,000 in real estate taxes. Section 61.075(5)(a)2 includes as marital assets "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party or from the contribution thereto or the expenditure thereon of marital funds ...." (emphasis added)....

...Where one spouse has paid significant expenses on the property of another spouse, even if they do not enhance the value of the property, the trial court can consider those payments in determining that there is a justification for an unequal distribution of marital assets. See § 61.075(1)(g)(providing that the trial court can determine whether an unequal distribution of marital assets is justified based on factors including "[t]he contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income or the...

...2d DCA 1994), and determined that the trial court should have reduced the husband's share of the distribution of marital assets by one-half of the marital funds contributed towards reducing the mortgage debt on the husband's nonmarital property. Thus, section 61.075(1)(g) gives the court some flexibility to compensate a spouse for contributions to nonmarital property, where it is not appropriate for the court to identify the asset as a marital asset....

...ved its benefit. The court could treat the expenses of seedlings and replanting as expenses necessary to generate income, rather than enhancements in the value of property, as the income was generated by cutting the growing timber. Thus, considering section 61.075(g), the trial court could determine that the contributions to the production of income were offset by the income received and no justification existed for any unequal distribution of marital assets because of it....

...the dissolution action. However, the final judgment does not list the time of filing as the valuation date for the Husband's business. "Different assets may be valued as of different dates, as, in the judge's discretion, the circumstances require." § 61.075(6), Fla. Stat. (2004); see Tucker v. Tucker, 966 So.2d 25, 26-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The trial court also may distribute assets unequally, provided it supplies specific findings of fact to justify its unequal distribution. See § 61.075(1); Hoirup v....

...nd. III. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION The former husband contends that the trial court failed to make any findings of fact to support the unequal distribution of the parties' marital assets and liabilities, and therefore reversal is required. We disagree. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, governs equitable distribution and lists factors which justify unequal distribution....

...* * * * * * (f) The desirability of retaining any asset, including an interest in a business, corporation, or professional practice, intact and free from any claim or interference by the other party. * * * * * * (j) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. § 61.075(1), Fla....

...When he transferred funds from his personal account into the accounts he maintained for his corporations, the funds in the latter accounts also became commingled such that it must be said that marital funds were used to purchase the properties at issue. Thus the properties bought during the marriage are marital assets. See § 61.075(5)(a)(1), Fla....

...First, he challenges the trial court's decision to equally divide the marital assets. "[T]he court must begin with the premise that the distribution [of marital assets and liabilities] should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors. . . ." § 61.075(1) (stating nonexclusive list of factors for court's consideration in fashioning equitable distribution); see Robertson v....

...We also affirm on Pfrengle's second issue, in which he challenges the trial court's determination that two parcels of jointly titled property were marital assets. By statute, the joint titling of these properties gave rise to a presumption that Pfrengle gifted interests in them to Kay. See § 61.075(5)(a)(5)....

...4th DCA 1989) (the wife should be credited for both her work in the practice as well as her contributions as a wife throughout the marriage); Buttner v. Buttner, 484 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA) (same), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1986); see also § 61.075(5)(a)(2), Fla....

...We, therefore, find no error in the trial court's finding that the real property parcels at issue were marital assets. The final judgment, however, does not refer to all the marital assets, nor does it identify or value all the marital assets and liabilities. As this court has held, section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires the final judgment to contain sufficient findings regarding assets and liabilities....

...icular assets. Rather, Mr. Pridgeon argues that his former wife has failed to prove that he "refuses to return two items to *260 her," and generally that the matter is too trivial to be reviewed by this court. We begin with the household appliances. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1991), requires the court to "set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities... ." The final judgment in a contested case must clearly identify "nonmarital assets and ownership interests." § 61.075(3)(a), Fla....

...not to exceed 50 percent of the amount awarded." [2] The requirement of fact finding in domestic cases, which we do not intend to expand by this opinion, has not, it seems, been a favorite of many trial judges. In the equitable distribution statute, Section 61.075(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1991), we find the requirement mandated not only for the benefit of the reviewing court, but also "to advise the parties ......

...ion order and the final judgment. Mrs. Catalfumo contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it used the *1098 date of filing the petition for dissolution, rather than the date of trial, as the valuation date for equitable distribution. Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), requires the valuation date to be the date of filing the petition "unless the trial judge determines that another date is just and equitable under the circumstances." However, this case was filed prior to the effective date of that section. The proper valuation date under case law preceding the enactment of section 61.075 is "either the petition filing date or the hearing date in cases where the value of the parties' property had significantly increased in value between the filing and trial dates, unless the trial court found sufficient justification for using some other date." Nicewonder v....

...Additionally, the trial court denied Wife's request for a QDRO to secure her equitable distribution of Husband's EORT. Husband appeals, and Wife cross-appeals. We find that only Husband's claims regarding the EORT and rehearing, and Wife's claims regarding the QDRO merit discussion. EORT Section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes, includes "[a]ll vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs" as a marital asset for purposes of equitable distribution. § 61.075(5)(a)(4), Fla....

...The EORT is a non-contributory "retirement system" that was established "for the purpose of providing retirement benefits." City of Miami Municode, §§ 40-292, 40-295. Thus, Husband's EORT is, at least in part, a marital asset subject to equitable distribution pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...certain conditions the corporate employer's irrevocable offer to sell its stock at the price quoted. If the employer attempts to withdraw that offer, the employee has `a chose in action' in contract against the employer." Green, 494 A.2d at 728. Cf. § 61.075(5)(a)(4), Fla....

...Appellant argues on appeal that the unvested stock options are not marital assets *318 because they are incapable of being valued or transferred. Appellant further argues that the Legislature did not provide for such treatment in its definition of "marital assets." Pursuant to 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), "marital assets and liabilities" include: 1....

...d upon by the parties as a marital asset; and 4. Assets and liabilities excluded from marital assets and liabilities by valid written agreement of the parties, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities. § 61.075(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). While the Legislature did not expressly provide for the treatment of stock options in sections 61.075(5)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes, Florida courts have been called upon to determine the nature of vested stock options in the realm of dissolution proceedings....

...In Seither v. Seither, 779 So.2d 331, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the Second District, in upholding the trial court's determination that vested stock options could be considered as income for alimony purposes instead of being treated as assets, noted that section 61.075(5)(a)4., Florida Statutes, broadly defines "marital assets." See also Brown v....

...1st DCA 1991) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's order that distributed husband's vested stock options); Langevin v. Langevin, 698 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Griffing v. Griffing, 722 So.2d 979, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Thus, because section 61.075(5)(a)4., Florida Statutes labels "nonvested" benefits, rights and funds as marital assets and the courts' determinations that vested stock options fall within the purview of section 61.075(5)(a)4., we hold that appellant's unvested stock options that accrued during the marriage also come within the definition of "marital assets." While both expert witnesses in this case testified that appellant's unvested stock options w...

...We agree with the majority of our sister jurisdictions that have decided this issue and hold that appellant's unvested stock options acquired during the marriage prior to the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, as set forth in section 61.075(6), [1] Florida Statutes, are marital property subject to equitable distribution....

...t with this opinion. ALLEN, C.J., and BROWNING, J., concur. NOTES [1] For purposes of equitable distribution, a court may classify an asset as a "marital asset" if such asset is acquired by a spouse pursuant to certain cut-off deadlines set forth in section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2000). Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2000) provides: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreem...

...The former wife's expert valued the BDE stock at $200,000 as of the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution, April 27, 1995, the prescribed valuation date unless the trial court finds another date equitable and just under the circumstances. § 61.075(6), Fla....

...operty by performing construction supervision and management duties at the complex. The enhancement in value or appreciation of a nonmarital asset is subject to equitable distribution if either or both spouses expend marital labor on that asset. See § 61.075(5)(a)(2), Fla....

...The husband would be entitled to an offset or credit for those nonmarital acquisition costs if Pine Tree North was acquired with nonmarital assets. This is so because only the increase in value of a nonmarital asset becomes marital property as a result of the application of marital labor thereon. See §§ 61.075(5)(a)(2) & 61.075(5)(b)(1) & (2), Fla....

...Unfortunately, these issues are not resolved in the final judgment. Because the trial court's order does not clearly resolve certain important issues, it fails to meet statutory requirements of specificity in regard to Pine Tree North and East and frustrates meaningful appellate review. See §§ 61.075(3)(a)-(d), Fla....

...$70,000 was used for farm expenses. We do, however, find error in the trial court's legal determination that the $70,000 sum was not a marital liability. In so saying, we recognize that the $70,000 loan came from Mrs. Ray's inherited funds, and that Section 61.075(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets" are nonmarital property. We also recognize that section 61.075(3)(a)(1) provides that "liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them" are marital liabilities....

...Ray's parents and from marital assets, and which the parties held as tenants by the entireties, was marital property. Mrs. Ray claimed a special equity in this property, however, by virtue of a room addition and driveway improvement that she paid for with inherited funds. Prior to the enactment of Section 61.075(3)(a)(5), Florida Statutes (1989), a spouse was entitled to a special equity if the spouse could establish that he or she had paid for the property, or a part thereof, from a source not connected with the marriage....

...nt alimony. The final judgment purports to equitably distribute the parties' assets and liabilities. The Former Wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to value the family business, Naples Envelope & Printing Company, and points out that section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), requires the trial court to make specific written findings as to the "[i]dentification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset[.]" We note that the trial court did not value any marital assets in the final judgment. In addition, section 61.075(3)(a) requires the trial court to identify the "nonmarital assets and ownership interests[.]" Although a transcript of the proceedings is not available, "the absence of a transcript does not preclude reversal where an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment." Chirino v....

...after the date of the final judgment of dissolution. We recognize that the trial court has discretion in determining a valuation date, but here that discretion has been abused. The trial court's failure to value either of these assets as required by section 61.075(3)(b), and its deferring the valuation for up to twelve years, results in an uncertain equitable distribution and one that would be impacted by postdissolution events such as the appreciation or depreciation in the value of the business....

...5th DCA 1986) (recognizing that the wife was not entitled to one-half of pension benefits to be paid when the husband retired at some time in the future because if the benefits increased, "the wife would be sharing in benefits acquired after the dissolution of the marriage"). Further, section 61.075(5)(a) defines marital assets to include those assets acquired "during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them[.]" In our view, any postdissolution loss or gain in the value of the Former Husband's business realized over a number of years is not a marital asset....

...Thus, although we do not know what testimony the parties presented, it appears that the trial court had some evidence before it as to the value of the home and the value of the business. Therefore, we reverse the equitable distribution and remand for the trial court to comply with section 61.075(3) by: identifying nonmarital assets and ownership interests; identifying the marital assets and liabilities; providing an individual valuation for the significant marital assets; and designating which spouse is entitled to each asset and responsible for each liability....

...2d DCA 1996) (remanding for the trial court to "make specific findings about the identity and value of all the significant marital assets and liabilities"). Furthermore, if the trial court makes an unequal distribution, it must make specific findings addressing the factors in section 61.075(1)(a)-(j) to support its decision. Id. In addition, we caution the trial court that although the valuation date is in the trial court's discretion, see § 61.075(6), the valuation date should be on or before the date that the trial court enters an amended final judgment on remand....

trial court’s rationale for the distribution ....” § 61.075(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012). Where certain findings

...The court awarded two of them to the former wife, which resulted in her receiving properties worth approximately $159,000.00. He awarded to the former husband one property plus cash, totalling approximately $53,000.00. But he made no findings based on the factors listed in section 61.075(1)(a) to justify this unequal distribution....

...Obviously any findings by the trial judge must be supported by competent and substantial evidence. [2] However, appellate courts no longer *144 delve through a trial record to find support in evidence for the ultimate rulings by the trial court; findings are first required. Florida is not a community property state. Section 61.075(1) as well as case law, [3] suggest that equal or 50/50 is the proper starting point in making an equitable distribution of marital assets. But, depending on the factors set forth in section 61.075(1), the distribution need not be equal. [4] Section 61.075 states: (1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties, or in a proceeding for disposition of assets following a dissolution of marriage by a cou...

...(i) The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition. (j) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. § 61.075, Fla.Stat....

...HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See Finch v. Finch, 659 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Kimm v. Kimm, 650 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So.2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat....

...The record reflects this sum represents charges Sharon incurred on credit cards she had opened, in her own name, after the filing of her petition for dissolution. We find these accounts, and the amounts charged on such, are non-marital, and should not have been included in the equitable distribution. See *960 § 61.075(6), Fla....

...The Husband was awarded the garage and the property on which it was located. The Wife was awarded 2/3 of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence with the remainder to the Husband. Had the trial court awarded the entire residence to the Wife, each party would have received close to 50% of the marital assets. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1995), mandates an equitable distribution of net marital assets unless an unequal distribution is justified based on all relevant factors....

...rust and thereby transform the funds into a non-marital asset not subject to equitable distribution. The trial court's findings regarding the husband's creation of the insurance trust amounted to a "depletion" of marital assets within the meaning of section 61.075(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2002), a relevant factor to consider in fashioning an equitable distribution....

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Family Law Form 12.901(h)(1)). ____ b. The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...or Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Family Law Form 12.901(h)(2)). ____ b. The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...you and should not be divided. You should indicate to whom you believe the item(s) or debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use this column if property/debt was owned/owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the instructions with this form and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A....

...t belongs to only one of you and should not be divided. You should indicate to whom you believe the item belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if property was owned by one spouse before the marriage. See the instructions with this form and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A B C Current Fair Nonmarital ASSETS: DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) Market Value (√ correct column) √ the box next to any asset(s) which you are requesting the judge award to you....

...bt belongs to only one of you and should not be divided. You should indicate to whom you believe the debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if the debt was owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the instructions with this form and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) B C A Current Nonmarital Amount Owed (√ correct column) LIABILITIES: DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) √ the box next to any debt(s) for which you believe husband wife you should be responsible....

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Family Law Form 12.901(h)(1)). ____ b. The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Family Law Form 12.901(h)(2)). ____ b. The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...e to be awarded to the wife. We also find the court erred in awarding the husband a special equity in the home based on "his premarital down payment." The supreme court in Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1991), held that the enactment of section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), preempted Ball v....

...Next the wife disputes the court's designation of eleven assets as nonmarital property of the husband. Nonmarital property includes assets acquired before the marriage, assets acquired during the marriage in exchange for assets acquired before the marriage, and all income derived from nonmarital property during the marriage. § 61.075(5)(b)1, 3, Fla....

...The wife contests the trial court's designation of the husband's appraisal fees and medical expenses incurred after the separation as marital liabilities. We conclude that the trial court erred and that these are liabilities of the husband alone. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...sset subject to equitable distribution. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1986); McKinlay v. McKinlay, 523 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Any distribution of marital assets must be based on relevant factors enumerated by statute. See § 61.075, Fla....

...The Husband's affidavit indicates that as of 5 July 1994, the balances were: Wavecrest, $37,195; Costa Del Sol, $36,985; Twin Lakes, $94,012. The Wife's affidavit, sworn on 29 February 1996, reflects these balances: Wavecrest, $35,429.85; Costa Del Sol, $35,672.53; Twin Lakes, $92,201.75. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes, the equitable distribution statute, states, in part: "The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is such date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances. Different assets may be valued as of different dates, as, in the judge's discretion, the circumstances require." *974 § 61.075(6), Fla....

...The husband purchased the property before the marriage, and it was titled in his name alone. The marital funds used to pay down the mortgage on the property, however, enhanced the value of the nonmarital asset; thus, the result ing equity in the property is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(5)(a)2., Fla....

...On cross-appeal, the husband contends that the trial court erred in determining that the parties' shares in an employee stock option plan were subject to equitable distribution as of the date of the final judgment. The wife agrees that the trial court's determination is contrary to section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides that the date for determining marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties entered into a valid separation agreement or the date of filing a petition for dissolution of marriage....

...The court also considered the Ford Explorer as marital and belonging to the husband. The wife first argues that the trial court erred in failing to include the husband's $660,611 accounts receivable from Royce and Bell in the final judgment equalization chart and in equitably distributing this amount. We agree. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2009), provides, in pertinent part, that (3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall...

...ets and allocation of liabilities. The distribution of marital assets or liabilities must be supported by factual findings in the judgment based on competent substantial evidence." Crockett v. Crockett, 708 So.2d 329, 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing § 61.075(3), Fla....

...iage, while the husband asserted that the money paid to the mother during her life was a gift and the property was not marital. The court accepted the wife's position, categorized the $29,975 as marital, and equitably distributed it. This was error. Section 61.075(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), sets forth "nonmarital assets and liabilities," which includes "2....

...s death, which included the home at issue. Therefore, based on the facts adduced at trial, the house was nonmarital, an asset acquired by bequest or devise. Further, any asset acquired in exchange for an asset from a bequest or devise is nonmarital. § 61.075(6)(b)2....

...or acquire any interest in the other party's separate property if it increases in value during the marriage." We construe this provision of the agreement to address passive appreciation. Therefore, the agreement does not preclude the application of section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1999), which provides that increases in value of a nonmarital asset that are attributable to marital labor or funds are subject to equitable distribution....

...Finally, the trial court awarded Former Husband $7,800 in cash as part of his share of the equitable distribution. We suspect the award was an attempt to hold Former Husband accountable for an amount of cash withdrawn from a personal bank account. See § 61.075(1)(i), Fla.Stat....

...Such findings must reflect consideration of the cost and availability of such insurance. Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). The statutory requirement that a trial court justify distributions of marital assets and liabilities is more explicit. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...onale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. Id. In making these findings, trial courts must bear in mind that any asset or liability acquired before the marriage is nonmarital and belongs to the party who acquired it. § 61.075(5)(b)(1), Fla....

...to the efforts of either party during the marriage or the "contribution or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets," the appreciation is marital property and should be accounted for in the equitable distribution scheme. § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...e of discretion standard. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The failure of the trial judge to explain why this marital asset would not be equitably distributed, when all other marital assets were equitably distributed, runs afoul of section 61.075(3), Fla....

...Therein, an equitable distribution plan requires "specific written findings of fact" including "findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities." § 61.075(3)(d)....

...EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Failure to equitably distribute the parties' assets and liabilities Decisions regarding equitable distribution are subject to an abuse of *344 discretion standard of review. Augoshe v. Lehman, 962 So.2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Pomeranz v. Pomeranz, 901 So.2d 895, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2003), requires the trial court to equitably distribute the parties' marital assets and liabilities....

...The trial court found that the SARs "have no marital value" because any appreciation would be based on the company's future performance. A court presumes that an asset is marital when a spouse acquires the asset after the date of the marriage and the asset has not specifically been established as nonmarital. § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2003). The cut-off date for determining marital assets, unless the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, is the date the petition was filed. § 61.075(6). Section 61.075(5)(a)(4) defines marital assets to include "[a]ll vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs[.]"...

...ife harmless for the same." The evidence reflects a debt Mr. Jones owes to his father's restaurant. The trial court made no written finding regarding this liability and did not identify the party which will be responsible for the debt as required by section 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...rded to him. [2] The husband's appeal followed. The husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in distributing the marital assets and liabilities. We agree. The equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities is governed by section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors" set forth in that subsection. "An equal division of marital assets is presumptively proper under section 61.075 and thus an unequal distribution must be justified by findings made by the court." Porzio v....

...4th DCA 2005) (providing that "an equitable distribution plan requires `specific written findings of fact' including `findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities'" (quoting § 61.075(3)(d), Fla....

...nequal distribution was based on these factors. While we recognize that "[t]he final judgment may offer support for the trial court's equitable distribution even though the relevant findings are not properly labeled as finding[s] of fact pursuant to section 61.075(3)," Maddox, 750 So.2d at 694, it is unclear to what extent, if any, the trial court's distribution of the assets and liabilities relied on these factors....

...Likewise, although the parties acknowledge that the "intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition," can justify a trial court's unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities, § 61.075(1)(i); see Bell, 587 So.2d at 643 (holding that "a party's conduct is not a valid reason to award a disproportionate amount of the marital assets to an innocent spouse unless [the conduct] depleted the marital assets"), the trial court's or...

...The Wife also challenges the trial court's denial of alimony. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION The Wife contends that the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings with respect to the marital or nonmarital nature of the parties' pension and retirement plans and the value of the plans. See § 61.075(1), (3) Fla....

...She also contends that the trial court arbitrarily and improperly offset the Husband's retirement plans with the Wife's depleted plan. As the final judgment reflects, the trial court failed to designate the Husband's City of Tampa tax deferred plan and pension plan as marital assets and failed to determine their value as section 61.075(3) requires....

...offsetting the Wife's depleted retirement funds against the Husband's pension and tax deferred plans that appeared to be the parties' primary marital assets. The trial court's distribution resulted in an unequal distribution in favor of the Husband. Section 61.075(1) provides that the distribution of assets and liabilities should be equal unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution, and section 61.075(3) requires the trial court to make findings addressing the factors in section 61.075(1)(a)-(j). We recognize that when the record contains no transcript, the mere failure to make the required statutory findings under section 61.075 does not require reversal when there is no showing of harmful error....

...We conclude that the reasoning provided in the final judgment does not support the inequitable distribution of marital assets. Therefore, we reverse the equitable distribution and remand for the trial court to identify, value, and equitably distribute the parties' assets and make findings in accordance with section 61.075(1) and (3)....

...First, the trial court failed to make sufficient findings regarding its equitable distribution scheme. Wife is correct that the final judgment of dissolution fails to identify all the marital assets and fails to include valuations of the marital assets and liabilities as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...Valic Annuity This Court has de novo review of a trial court's conclusion of law that an asset is a marital asset and is therefore subject to equitable distribution. See Smith v. Smith, 971 So.2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). A trial court is required to set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets. See § 61.075(5)(b)1., Fla....

...Profit Sharing Plan This Court has de novo review of a trial court's conclusion of law that an asset is a marital asset and is therefore subject to equitable distribution. See Smith v. Smith, 971 So.2d 191, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). A trial court has the discretion to value assets as of different dates. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...Guelpa, 885 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Langevin v. Langevin, 698 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The date for determining marital assets is the earliest date the parties entered into a valid separation agreement *581 or the date the petition was filed. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...ifty percent of the parties' marital assets, without any express findings by the trial judge to explain the distribution and without any competent substantial evidence in the record to support it. We remand for additional findings in accordance with section 61.075(3). The former wife filed a petition for dissolution of the parties' marriage in January 1992. The final judgment was rendered on September 28, 1992. The decree does not comply with the findings and valuation requirements of section 61.075(3) in several particulars....

...Bowen, 347 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. Lee v. Lee, 563 So.2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(citing Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)). Section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) defines a marital asset as: (1) Assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them; (2) The enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital...

...Accordingly, the trial court correctly found that the Husband failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating the existence of a nonmarital portion of the E*Trade account. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its considerable discretion in valuing the account as of the trial date. Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2006), gives the trial court wide discretion in this regard: The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances....

...alue of the portion of the VUL policy subject to equitable distribution is $5049.91. Alternatively, the trial court may, in its discretion, choose to value the shares at the time of trial if it can determine the value of the shares on that date. See § 61.075(6)....

...evidence." Thus, section 112.18(1) expressly provides that the presumption can be rebutted by "competent evidence." Nothing in this statute indicates that the legislature required an elevated burden of proof to rebut the presumption. Compare, e.g., § 61.075(6)(a)(4), Fla....

which supports this argument and, in fact, section 61.075(1) of the Florida Statutes (2007) expressly

...Where mixed questions of law and fact arise, we defer to the trial court's factual findings to the extent they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but review legal conclusions de novo. Batur v. Signature Props. of Nw. Fla., Inc., 903 So.2d 985, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Pursuant to section 61.075(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), non-marital assets include those acquired by either party prior to the marriage. For present purposes, the cut-off date for determining the marital status of assets is the date of filing the petition for dissolution. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...Puskar does not dispute that his wife owned Bear Run before the marriage. Mrs. Puskar points out that filing a joint federal income tax return including the separate non-marital income of one spouse does not convert that income to marital property under section 61.075(5)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2005) (defining as a non-marital asset "income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage," unless treated or relied upon as a marital asset)....

...The former wife contends that the trial court erred in denying an equitable distribution of the enhanced value of the former husband's business [1] (a non-marital asset). She is correct that the enhancement in value of a non-marital asset due to marital labor or effort is a material asset subject to equitable distribution. § 61.075(5)(a)(2), Fla....

...I, too, conclude that affirmance is proper, inasmuch as the trial court acted within its reasonable discretion. Because of a recent addition to Florida dissolution of marriage law, interspousal gifts during marriage are now regarded as marital assets for equitable distribution purposes. § 61.075(3)(a)3, Fla....

...1st DCA 1992) ("The mere fact that the wife was unaware of the debts is insufficient to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the debts were not marital liabilities."). Moreover, there is no support for the finding that the wife dissipated marital assets within the meaning of paragraph 61.075(1)(i), Florida Statutes, either through the use of her credit cards or the cashing in of her stock....

...HARRIS, J., concurs, without participation at oral argument. NOTES [1] The dissolution order refers to each party's credit card debt as "individual" debt. This could be read as an indication that the debts are being treated as nonmarital; however, because the order lists the factors in section 61.075, Florida Statutes, regarding "equitable distribution of marital liabilities," apparently the order is treating the debt as marital but then ordering the wife to pay more than half of the total....

...By statute, a marital asset included "the enhancement in value and appreciation of non-marital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both." § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...It is well established under Florida law, that "in distributing the marital assets and liabilities, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors, ... including those factors set forth in section 61.075(1)(a) through (j), Florida Statutes (2001)." Christ v....

...By statute, a marital asset includes "the enhancement in value and appreciation of non-marital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both." § 61.075(5)(a)2., Fla....

...Maddox. Mrs. Maddox was unaware of most of the various encumbrances until she began the effort of redeeming the property from foreclosure. Under well-established statutory and case law, an interspousal gift during the marriage is a marital asset. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in distributing marital assets. See id. The final judgment may offer support for the trial court's equitable distribution even though the relevant findings are not properly labeled as finding of fact pursuant to section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...ched the age of majority and an order that the Husband reimburse the Wife for payments she made to maintain health insurance for him. This record does not reveal whether the outstanding medical bill can be properly classified as a marital liability. Section 61.075(5) defines marital liabilities as all "liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them." If the debt is marital, the Wife may seek distribution of that debt pursuant to section 61.075(1)....

...of the husband's active management of the account during the marriage. The husband challenges this finding on appeal. Our legislature has defined which assets will be deemed "marital" and subject to equitable distribution and which are "nonmarital." Section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), provides in relevant part that a "marital" asset includes: assets acquired during the marriage; "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ......

...ensation, and insurance plans and programs." In contrast, "nonmarital" assets include assets acquired before the marriage and all income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage, unless the parties treat such income as a marital asset. See § 61.075(5)(b)....

...on his home, which was former husband's premarital asset, awarded to him in the judgment of dissolution. Although the court did not specifically label assets as marital or nonmarital and did not value all assets in distribution as is required by subsection 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1995), it is clear from our review of the distribution scheme that the court failed to credit former husband with his premarital contribution to the 401(k) plan. See Cole v. Roberts, 661 So.2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Former husband should have received his premarital interest in the 401(k) account, plus any passive accumulations thereon. Subsection 61.075(5)(a)4 defines marital assets as including: "All vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs." (Emphasis supplied). Nonmarital assets include assets acquired by either party prior to the marriage, and all income derived from the nonmarital assets during the marriage, unless the income was treated, used or relied upon by the parties as a marital asset. See § 61.075(5)(b)1, 3....

...s interest in the nonmarital portion of the asset. The portion of the 401(k) to which former wife is entitled as a "marital asset" is one-half of the contributions to the account, and the accumulations thereon, during the course of the marriage. See 61.075(5)(a)4; Griffiths v....

...nt he opened with inherited funds was a marital asset and in denying him credit for monies taken from that account to pay for marital obligations. Because the inherited funds never became a marital asset, we reverse. I. The Husband's Inherited Funds Section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2003), provides in pertinent part: (a) "Marital assets and liabilities" include: 1....

...We reject the husband's contention that the wife's claim of entitlement to the increased equity in the husband's premarital home was barred because she did not plead a special equity. The wife sought equitable distribution of marital property, as defined in the statutes, not a special equity. To that end, section 61.075(5)(a)(2) of the Florida Statutes (1999) provides that marital assets include any "enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution...

...o the appreciation in value, valuation, and distribution of the former husband's A.G. Edwards brokerage accounts, we reverse the remainder of the equitable distribution scheme and remand for further proceedings in accordance with the requirements of section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...The former wife filed the petition to dissolve the seven-year marriage in January 2002; the former husband filed an answer and counter-petition. No children were born or adopted during the parties' marriage. The primary issue in the dissolution proceedings related to equitable distribution. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes, sets out the governing criteria for equitable distribution, and a trial court's rulings on equitable distribution are reviewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980); Lafaille v. Lafaille, 837 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The premise of section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, is that the distribution of marital assets and marital liabilities between the parties "should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors." See Herrera v....

...the disparity. See Widmer v. Widmer, 713 So.2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Herrera. The parties stipulated to the division of the former wife's Bracco retirement/pension plans. The trial court distributed the remaining marital assets pursuant to section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes....

...liabilities. When the marital liabilities are subtracted from the marital assets, the former wife's ultimate share is 76%, with the former husband receiving only 24%. Such a glaring discrepancy must be supported by findings based on the record. See § 61.075(1) & (3), Fla....

...eaningful search for full employment. Competent substantial evidence supports these factual findings. Given that the Florida Legislature has empowered trial courts to consider "other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties" in section 61.075(1)(j), Florida Statutes, these findings regarding the former husband's spending patterns and employment history are relevant to the distribution of assets and liabilities. See § 61.075(1)(g), Fla....

...This award of the marital home must be reversed because there are no findings of fact demonstrating it is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. Additionally, the trial court did not make any findings concerning the value of the attorney's fee contribution or appellee's interest in appellant's retirement plan. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), requires the trial court to set apart to each spouse his/her nonmarital assets and liabilities before making an equitable distribution of the marital assets....

...The court noted that because the wife had withdrawn her alimony and attorney's fees claims, the only issues to be resolved concerned equitable distribution, and the main dispute was the marital appreciation of the husband's nonmarital stock accounts. The trial court stated that the definition of marital assets in section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), includes the enhancement of value of nonmarital assets resulting from the efforts of either party during the marriage....

...Kovalchick, 841 So.2d 669, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the trial court's determination is reviewed de novo when the issue on appeal, as here, concerns a pure issue of law. *838 Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So.2d 867, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citation omitted). Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007), defines a marital asset as "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ......

...4th DCA 2004) ("[O]nce it is established that marital labor was used, the burden falls to the party claiming that the increase is nonmarital to establish whether any part of the increase was the result of passive market conditions and, thus, is exempt from equitable distribution."); see § 61.075(7), Fla....

...The husband actively traded in his brokerage account. After subtracting deposits from nonmarital sources, the amount by which the date of filing value of the husband's brokerage account exceeded its value on the date of the marriage was "presumed" to be a marital asset. § 61.075(7), Fla....

...Since he claimed that a portion of the increase was non-marital, the burden was on the husband "to establish whether any part of the increase was the result of passive market conditions and, thus, is exempt from equitable distribution." O'Neill v. O'Neill, 868 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); § 61.075(7), Fla....

...o measure passive appreciation in a portfolio, the party offering the index will satisfy its initial burden of proof to show that a portion of the account is nonmarital. When it comes to determining the effects of marital "efforts" on an asset under section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007), a brokerage account containing stocks is unlike a small business owned by one of the spouses....

...to purchase 1,000 shares of Apple stock in 2004 and to hold it until 2007 would have involved marital "effort" that generated a large gain, but it would fall under the one trade de minimis rule of Steele v. Steele, 945 So.2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Section 61.075(5)(a)(2)....

...brokerage account as measured by an appropriate stock index. These cases have gone beyond the language of the statute to create complexity where a spouse brings assets to a marriage. Chapman and O'Neill involved the application of two subsections of section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2008). First, subsections 61.075(6)(a)1.a....

...[T]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both. Second, under subsections 61.075(6)(b)1., and 3., "nonmarital assets" include: 1....

...The statutory definition of non-marital assets contemplates that assets in a brokerage account can be bought and sold without altering the nonmarital designation of the assets in the account. Non-marital assets include "assets acquired ... prior to the marriage, and assets acquired ... in exchange for such assets." § 61.075(6)(b)1., Fla....

...olving the marriage, if such is supported by the evidence, and containing findings of fact supporting any division of assets or award of alimony. In fashioning the amended final judgment, the trial judge may wish to review the following authorities: section 61.075(1)(g), Florida Statutes (Ch....

...It is unclear what other assets were owned. When the parties married, they moved to Florida. With the husband's pre-marital funds they purchased a home in Jupiter and took title in the names of both husband and wife. The home was purchased and then improved. Section 61.075(5)(a)5., Florida Statutes, provides that all real property held by tenants by the entireties is presumed to be a marital asset, and if a person claims a special equity in the property, the burden is on that party to prove the claim....

...The husband then used these monies, and others, to day trade in the stock market and to cover some household expenses. In addition to the day trading, part of these monies were used to purchase gold coins. Because the house was a marital asset, so too was the income received from the loan against the home. See § 61.075(5)(a)1., Fla....

...that they are the same assets. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's disposition as to the parties' personal property, but we agree with the husband that the wife's $3,000 IRA was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(5)(a)3., Fla....

...Those portions of the amended final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, designating Appellant as the primary residential parent, and awarding child support and related items are affirmed. However, concluding that the amended final judgment lacks sufficient factual findings, as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2000), to allow meaningful appellate review of the issues raised by Appellant, we reverse the equitable distribution scheme and the denial of attorney's fees and costs and remand with instructions to the trial court to set out findings of fact to support its rulings....

...The parties were ordered to pay his or her own attorney's fees and costs. Appellee's Retirement Benefits At the dissolution trial, Appellee testified that for the duration of his employment *345 there, he had had a retirement plan at Shands, where he worked as a construction foreman. Section 61.075(5)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2000), defines "marital assets and liabilities" to include "[a]ll vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compens...

...Appellant contends that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to identify Appellee's retirement benefits as a marital or non-marital asset, to valuate the retirement, and to account for it in any manner in the equitable distribution scheme. We agree that this omission compels reversal. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Marital Enhancement of Appellee's Nonmarital Real Estate Next, Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by finding there was no marital enhancement of Appellee's nonmarital real estate, rendering the property not subject to equitable distribution. § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 61.075(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2000), defines "marital assets and liabilities" to include "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the c...

...denial of fees and costs and direct the trial court to make findings to explain its ruling. Hyatt v. Hyatt, 672 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hammond, 801 So.2d at 989. Classification and Distribution of Certain Nonmarital Tangible Personal Property Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2000), requires a trial court to "set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital *348 assets and liabilities." Pridgeon v....

...nclude the required statutory findings. In fashioning an equitable distribution scheme, the trial court is required to set apart to each spouse his or her nonmarital assets and liabilities because those are not subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...less equitable factors compel a different result. See Robertson, 593 So.2d at 493; Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The final distribution must be supported by factual findings based on substantial competent evidence. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...husband appeals a final judgment that (1) divided marital property and debts; (2) awarded the wife permanent alimony; (3) awarded child support; and (4) awarded attorney's fees. We conclude that the court's plan of equitable distribution pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997), is without error....

...The IRS argues that Debtor does not constitute a purchaser because the conveyance by Magaly Suarez to Debtor was not "valid under local law," since the deed for the conveyance was not recorded until November 30, 1993, after the Notices of Federal Tax Lien were filed on November 17, 1993. The Court disagrees. Florida Statute Section 61.075(4) provides that a judgment distributing marital assets: "shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release or acquisition which is recorded in the county where the property is located when the judgme...

...ttance that is recorded in the county where the judgment is recorded." Magaly Suarez's interest in the property was conveyed to Debtor upon recordation of the Final Order in the Official Records of Dade County, Florida on December 4, 1991. Fla.Stat. Section 61.075(4) (1994); Fla....

...The recording of this instrument perfected transfer of title to Debtor as of December 4, 1991. The delivery of the quitclaim deed dated June 17, 1993 from Magaly Suarez to Debtor which was recorded on November 30, 1993 was not dispositive. Her interest already had been conveyed upon recordation of the Final Order. Fla.Stat. Section 61.075(4) (1994); Fla.R.Civ.P....

...t reasonably be deemed harmless. On remand, the trial court must make specific written findings regarding how long Mr. Christ was in the Army, how much of the VSI is a "marital asset" subject to equitable distribution, and what its present value is. § 61.075(3)(b) & (5), Fla....

...items from the storage site to her Florida residence and too costly to have them shipped do not, by themselves, prove an error of law. The trial court abused its discretion in omitting marital liabilities from the equitable distribution scheme. See § 61.075(1), (3)(c) & (5)(b), Fla....

...Florida law provides that "[i]n distributing the marital assets and liabilities, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors," including those factors set forth in section 61.075(1)(a) through (j), Florida Statutes (2001); Collinsworth v....

...The agreement determined, among other things, the right to and the amount of alimony for the former wife. In a contested dissolution action, Florida law requires the identification of marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities and the allocation of assets and liabilities to each party. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release or acquisition, "which is recorded in the county where the property is located", or a certified copy of the judgment recorded in official records citing Fla. Stat. 61.075(2)....

...pended the finality of the judgment and did not transfer the ownership in the two IRA funds from the Debtor to Ms. McGinty. The legal effect of a final judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage proceeding is specifically dealt with in Fla. Stat. 61.075(2) which provides that: The judgment distributing assets shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release, or acquisition which is recorded in the county where the property is located when the judgment or a...

...ida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b). Pruitt at 774. An appeal does not affect finality, but a party may stay enforcement of a judgment by posting a supersedeas bond in the case of a money judgment. 543 So.2d at 310. One must concede that Fla. Stat. 61.075, viewed in isolation, purports to operate as a self-executing decree and in Paragraph 2 purports to vest ownership without any further action by the court or by the party to whom the property was awarded in order to obtain a transfer of owners...

...e husband's stock portfolio. We recognize that "[t]he date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances." § 61.075(7), Fla....

...However, the husband made at least a minimal argument for consideration of the decrease in the value of his stock portfolio and, therefore, did not invite the error. Because we reverse the final judgment, the husband's second argument that the final judgment is deficient because its form allegedly does not comply with section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2008), is moot....

...d was entitled to a special equity in any of the properties. We reverse that portion of the final judgment dealing with the equitable distribution of the marital home and the other real estate owned by the parties and remand for findings pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...Although the final judgment indicates that the valuation date of assets was the date of trial, the primary valuation date used by the parties and relied upon by the court was April 30, 1994. The detailed final judgment demonstrates valuations in accord with section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...The following opinion is substituted therefore. The trial court in the instant case granted a judgment of dissolution, awarded permanent periodic alimony, and distributed assets of the parties, all without the factual findings which are required under section 61.075(3) and section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...of conflict created by Florida statutes. However, these statutes do not vary the protective scheme of homestead exemption rights; rather, they expand it. Such further protection can be found within the family and probate law contexts. For instance, § 61.075 of the Florida Statutes provides for the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities in dissolution of marriage proceedings. A "marital asset" includes *720 all "assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them." § 61.075(5)(a)(1), Fla.Stat....

...The testimony regarding these corporations was confusing, and although Betty was the owner of Excel Tel Services, the record is unclear as to whether Jesse, Betty or Nelson Engineering received any value for it. On remand, the trial court should revisit this issue and make factual determinations thereon. [5] § 61.075(6), Fla....

...[1] Footnote 3, page 981 of the original opinion. Blue Water owned, at one time, two boats: a Bertram and a Hatteras. The Bertram was sold and the Hatteras, which was insured, was destroyed by fire, refurbished and sold. [2] Footnote 5, page 982 of the original opinion. § 61.075(6), Fla....

...connection with the disposition of the proceeds of the marital residence. Third, based upon our finding that the parties' only major asset should be divided equally, we deem it proper that the marital liabilities should also be divided equally. See § 61.075, Fla....

...timesharing parenting plan. On cross-appeal, the former husband’s contends that the trial court erred in determining that his credit card debt was nonmarital and that this error led to an inequitable distribution unsupported by findings. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2012), requires the trial court to identify and value all marital assets and liabilities....

...novo review.”). “All assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either spouse subsequent to the date of the marriage and not specifically established as nonmarital assets or liabilities are presumed to be marital assets and liabilities.” § 61.075(8), Fla....

...Hicks submitted proposed distributions, the court awarded substantially all the valuable assets of the marriage to the wife. He points out that this occurred because the wife's proposed distribution, which served as the basis for the final judgment, valued assets and liabilities on different dates. He cites section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (1988), for the proposition that the trial court must use the same date for valuations of each and *877 every asset and liability. We disagree with this blanket assertion. Section 61.075(4) does not apply here because the Hicks' divorce proceedings commenced in November 1986, long before the section's effective date of October 1, 1988....

...ift." However, the court's conclusion that the Wife was not entitled to a credit as part of the equitable distribution is not supported by the applicable law. Interspousal gifts during a marriage are marital assets subject to equitable distribution. § 61.075(1), (5)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2004). In determining the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities, section 61.075(1)(g) directs the trial court to consider "[t]he contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income or the improvement of, or the incurring of liabilities to, both marital assets and the nonmarital as...

...We affirm the trial court's order as to the issues raised in the cross-appeal. Other Equitable Distribution Issues The Husband argues that he should have been awarded an unequal distribution or a special equity in the marital home and that the trial court failed to follow the requirements of section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2004), in equitably distributing the parties' assets and liabilities. Section 61.075(1) states that the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's non-marital assets and liabilities, and in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is justification for an unequal distribution based upon all relevant factors. The statute identifies various factors for the court to consider as justification for an unequal distribution. Further, section 61.075(3) states the following: In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the ju...

...ithout giving him credit for past mortgage payments or those that he would have to make until the home sold. He argues that this effectively results in an unequal distribution and that the trial court did not take into account the factors set out in section 61.075(1) to justify an unequal distribution....

...use of marital funds to satisfy the mortgage on that property. On remand, the trial court must reconsider the equitable distribution of the parties' assets and liabilities in light of the evidence that has been presented and the factors contained in section 61.075, and it must address the Husband's claims for credit due to mortgage payments and a special equity....

...Stoops' equitable lien claims resulting from the lump sum alimony award. Based on the foregoing, one might conclude that the Trustee is entitled to the relief it seeks under Count IV, unless Mrs. Stoops' proposition is supported by applicable law and authorities. Ms. Stoops posits that Florida Statute § 61.075(7) creates a presumption that assets acquired after the date of a marriage are marital assets....

...We, therefore, reverse the final judgment with respect to the subject property and remand for further proceedings. The final judgment also lacks adequate findings to support the court's conclusions of law. Here the parties contest ownership of the property. Section 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that in a contested dissolution action, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent, substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in section 61.075(1)....

...telligent review. Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So.2d 635, 636-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Walsh v. Walsh, 600 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). After determining the character of the property, the trial court must determine a date of valuation pursuant to section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2004), and make findings concerning the property's value....

...Likewise, we believe that the able trial judge, when presented with a complicated record of transactions involving multiple marriages and the parties' individual and joint properties, achieved a fair result that accords with the requirements of the equitable distribution statute, section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...One of the assets at issue in equitable distribution was a house (the "LeBrun house") which appellant had owned before she and appellee married in 1967, and which was titled in her name alone. As such, the LeBrun house was a nonmarital asset as defined by section 61.075(5)(b)1., Florida Statutes: "[a]ssets acquired ......

...Rather, "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both" is a marital asset. Section 61.075(5)(a)2., Fla.Stat....

...He also points out that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record that any portion of the benefits payable under his disability policies represents or is a substitute for retirement benefits. In response, the Wife argues that the disability policies are marital assets under section 61.075(5)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (2005), because they were purchased with marital funds....

...As this court has recently noted: "[A] spouse's entitlement to pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property." *131 Acker v. Acker, 904 So.2d 384, 386 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 270 (Fla.1986)); see also § 61.075(5)(a)(4), Fla....

...ion as a marital liability. We agree with the Wife. The parties did not have a valid separation agreement. Therefore, the date of the filing of the petition was the "cut-off date" for determining the marital classification of assets and liabilities. § 61.075(6); Rao-Nagineni v. Rao, 895 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court erred in failing to classify the Wife's shareholder loans as a marital debt to the extent of the $62,440.39 borrowed before the petition was filed. See § 61.075(5)-(7); Alpert v....

...The record shows that both parties incurred some student loan debt prior to marriage and some during the marriage, but the record fails to delineate which loans were incurred when. Without this evidence, the trial court could not properly determine which liabilities were marital and which were nonmarital. See § 61.075(5)(a)1, (b)1, (7), Fla....

...The trial court also abused its discretion in failing to even mention some of the parties' loans and in apparently duplicating one of Former Husband's loans (Chemical Bank/NYS Higher Education) as both a marital liability and a nonmarital liability. See § 61.075(1), (3), Fla....

liabilities, and all other relevant findings. § 61.075(3)(a-d), Fla. Stat. (2011). Failure by the trial

...pension or retirement benefits must be considered a marital asset for purposes of equitably distributing marital property." Acker v. Acker, 904 So.2d 384, 386 (Fla.2005) (quoting Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 270 (Fla.1986)); see also § 61.075(5)(a)(4), Fla....

...We agree; however, such changes are best left to the legislature. Unequal Distribution of Assets Finally, the Husband argues that the trial court erred in distributing marital assets unequally, ultimately redounding in favor of the Wife. [S]ection 61.075(1) requires the trial court to distribute marital assets and liabilities between the parties beginning with the premise that an equal distribution should occur....

...Stough, seeks rehearing of that portion of this court's opinion, filed April 21, 2006, in which we decided that the $95,000 advance from appellee's separate property used to purchase the parties' marital home, which was jointly titled in both their names, did not defeat the statutory presumption provided in section 61.075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes, that the conveyance was intended as a gift to the former husband of one-half of jointly held property....

...Because of our disposition of the property issues, we also remand the case to the trial court with directions to revisit the remaining undisposed issues for the purpose of considering all pertinent "factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1)(j), Fla....

...s were paid during the course of the 19-year marriage. The wife's monthly income from the trust was in excess of $8,000, while the former husband's sole source of income was from Social Security disability payments in the monthly amount of $569. [1] Section 61.075(5)(a)1 designates as a marital asset an asset "acquired ....

...The court continued, however, that the remaining assets became untraceable due to their being commingled with marital assets and used for the purchase of marital items during the course of the marriage. Id. at 1200. The court *607 reached its conclusion by interpreting section 61.075 as creating a presumption of a gift to a spouse of one-half of jointly held property if the separate property of the other spouse is commingled with non-marital property, and it decided that because the wife had not rebutted the presum...

...ortgage. Because the marital property was titled in the names of both parties as tenants by the entireties, a statutory presumption arose that such property was a marital asset, and the party making any claim to the contrary has the burden of proof. § 61.075(5)(a)5....

...idence to overcome the statutory presumption that a gift was intended. We apply the same reasoning to the instant case. Appellee's explanation regarding why she allowed her husband's name on the deed is insufficient to overcome the burden imposed by section 61.075(5)(a)5....

...5th DCA 1993), we remand the case to the trial court so that it may revisit the monetary awards in their totality. In so doing, we note that nothing in the equitable distribution statute requires an even split of marital assets between the parties. Section 61.075(1), while directing the trial court to "begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal," permits an unequal distribution if "there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors." [2] AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED....

...ift to her a one-half interest in the condominium, by demonstrating "(1) donative intent, (2) delivery or possession of the gift, and (3) surrender of dominion and control of the gift." Mills v. Mills, 845 So.2d 230, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); see also § 61.075(6)(a)(1)(c), Fla....

...The trial court also designated some cash account assets and liabilities, and their respective valuations, as marital or non-marital assets. The trial court, however, did not identify all of the property as either marital or non-marital assets, in derogation of section 61.075(3) of the Florida Statutes. § 61.075(3)(a)-(c), Fla....

...The wife's father is the chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and he owns 96% of the stock. The other four percent of the stock is owned by a vice president of the company. [2] The senior vice president of Miller Bearings earns $6,158 per month. [1] § 61.075(3), Fla....

...(thirty percent) to the Husband. Much of the difference is based on the court awarding the Wife an increased interest in the value attributable to the marital home and the Tennessee lot. To support the unequal distribution, the trial court relied on section 61.075(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2005). In the final judgment the court stated as follows: Pursuant to section 61.075(g) [sic] Florida Statutes, the Court finds that essentially all of the wealth that has been accumulated during the course of the marriage has been directly through the contribution of the wife's parents to the parties' [sic] as a married couple. The Court finds that this factor justifies an unequal distribution in the favor of the wife. The court stated no other reasoning for the unequal distribution. Section 61.075(1) provides that "in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on...

...the following statutory factor: "The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income or the improvement of, or the incurring of liabilities to, both the marital assets and the nonmarital assets of the parties." § 61.075(1)(g) (emphasis added)....

...The Wife contends that the *127 gifts from her parents to both her and the Husband should be considered as her own extraordinary contribution. She argues that these gifts were made by her parents due to their relationship with her. The plain language of section 61.075(1)(g) states that the trial court must consider the contributions of each spouse....

...Little evidence was presented regarding the reasons for the gifts, but the record is clear that the gifts were made to both the Husband and the Wife during their long-term marriage. Based on the evidence presented as to all of the circumstances, we conclude that section 61.075(1)(g) does not support an unequal distribution....

...e goal of allowing her to stay in the home with the children. Id. at 1151. The circumstances of this case are not analogous to those in Russell. Here, the trial court determined that there should be an unequal distribution in favor of the Wife under section 61.075(1)(g) solely on the basis that the wealth accumulated by the parties resulted from the gifts made by the Wife's parents to the parties as a married couple....

...In making the unequal distribution, the trial court mainly focused on the fact that the husband had brought a significant amount of premarital assets into a nine-year marriage and commingled them with marital assets. Id. at 807. The Fourth District recognized that for the factor in section 61.075(1)(g) to be applicable, the spouse must have made extraordinary contributions to the marriage "over and above the normal marital duties" and that the husband's status as primary wage earner did not meet this standard. Id. at 809. The court reversed and remanded for an equal distribution, noting that the case presented "no unique circumstances that would render a harsh result necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." Id. at 810; see § 61.075(1)(j)....

...Here, the parties had a long-term marriage of thirty-seven years, and the Wife's parents made gifts to both the Husband and the Wife during the course of the marriage. The record does not establish that the gifts can properly be considered as the Wife's contributions to the marriage under section 61.075(1)(g), particularly as the trial court found that the Husband and Wife made essentially equivalent contributions to the marriage....

decided by the trial court must comply with section 61.075, Florida Statutes, which states in pertinent

...include contributions to the pension plan and the accrual of benefits after the date of the original judgment of dissolution. In Boyett, the court expressed that such a practice would not give effect to the statutory definition of marital assets in section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes....

...her mother's name. The trial court found that all of the proceeds of the CenterState account, including the proceeds representing gifts to the former wife from her mother, were marital assets subject to equitable distribution under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2013)....

...clusion for competent, substantial evidence. Tradler v. Tradler, 100 So. 3d 735, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Although the former wife is correct that noninterspousal gifts like those from her mother are treated as nonmarital assets, see § 61.075(6)(b)(2), that does not end the inquiry....

...at the cash gifts should not be considered marital assets because there is no evidence that the proceeds in the CenterState account were used to pay marital expenses. She concedes that it was her burden to show that the gifts were nonmarital. See § 61.075(6)(a)(3)....

...mount of the down payment and no finding regarding additional circumstances to overcome the presumption of a gift; and (3) that reversal is required because the trial court did not identify and value all marital assets and liabilities as required by section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...ke clear why former husband is entitled to a lopsided award. [2] (2) Special equity for down payment on the marital home In Florida, all real property held by tenants by the entireties is presumed to be a marital asset regardless of who paid for it. § 61.075(5)(a)5, Fla....

...As explained by Cattaneo v. Cattaneo, 803 So.2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), however, the above does not mean that former wife is necessarily entitled to fifty *1014 percent of the value of the down payment. See id. at 891 (stating that trial court must consider the factors of section 61.075(1) factors in making a proper equitable distribution)....

...ity for the down payment is still appropriate after reevaluating the equitable distribution of the marital home. When applying the formula, the trial court should attach a value to the down payment and clearly indicate the value in its judgment. See § 61.075(3)(b), (d), Fla....

...assets and allocation of liabilities"). (3) Whether the trial court failed to value assets and liabilities Lastly, we find that reversal is required because the trial court did not identify and value all marital assets and liabilities as required by section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). In a contested dissolution such as the one here, the trial court must identify and value all marital assets. § 61.075(3)(b), Fla....

...The trial judge noted that the husband had received gifts of stock and designated those as nonmarital property. The trial court's finding that increases in the companies' values were marital assets subject to equitable distribution is supported by competent substantial evidence, and we find no error. See § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...aking its value into account for computing equitable distribution. This, too, was error. Macaluso v. Macaluso, 523 So.2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 531 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1988). On remand, the trial court should make an adjustment consistent with section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...Thus, the factual findings are particularly important here. Williams v. Williams, 923 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The total lack of *409 factual findings here precludes meaningful review. We reverse and remand for further findings. Failure to Identify, Value, and Distribute Assets Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial court "shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities, and in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors," including factors set forth in subsections (a) through (j). Pursuant to section 61.075(3), where a dissolution is contested, "any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enum...

...d designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability; (d) Any other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...e in the former husband's possession. The husband did not dispute that the items were nonmarital, but argued she had not proven that he refused to return the items to her, and the matter was "too trivial to be reviewed." Id. at 260. This court found section 61.075 "makes no exception for either appliances or assets deemed by one spouse to be not worthy of taking up the court's time," and directed the trial court to award the items to the former wife on remand....

...However, in Pridgeon, 632 So.2d at 259-60, this court rejected a similar argument that the former wife was not entitled to be awarded her nonmarital property because she had not *410 proven the former husband was unwilling to return it to her. Under section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2006), property acquired prior to the marriage or by gift is nonmarital, regardless of where it is currently stored....

...The former wife responds that she testified she did not take all of the furniture, and she did not take any of the jewelry, and the trial court was entitled to rely on her testimony. The court's distribution of furniture and jewelry lacked the specific factual findings required by section 61.075(3), including the "[i]dentification of marital assets," the "designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset," and "[a]ny other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale." In Kelley v....

...The trial court awarded the husband a special equity in the marital home "based upon his contribution of premarital funds in the sum of $18,000." The final judgment stated that: "The Wife claims, but has failed to establish, that the Husband intended a gift to her of said nonmarital funds." Section 61.075(5)(a)5., Florida Statutes (1991), provides that: All real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset....

...We affirm the trial court's resolution of all issues on appeal except for the one we now discuss. It involves the wife's contention that certain work in progress in the husband's professional offices should be valued and considered for purposes of alimony and as part of an equitable distribution under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Unlike jurisdictions not recognizing intangible property as a divisible part of the marital estate, Florida has recognized a spouse's interest in the intangible assets of nonvested pension benefits and goodwill in a spouse's professional firm. See § 61.075, Florida Statutes (1996) (marital assets include nonvested pension benefits); Thompson v....

...Kimm was not believable and, in fact, had an income of at least twice the amount claimed. We find the court's alimony award to be within its Canakaris discretion. We reverse that portion of the final judgment, however, that distributes the marital assets and liabilities. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993) provides: In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ......

...marital liabilities to the husband without any explanation. On remand, the court shall determine the total amount of marital debt (including the payments on the Mercedes) and, unless the court can articulate appropriate reasons to do otherwise (see section 61.075(a)-(j)), evenly distribute the marital liabilities by reallocation of assets or otherwise....

...Thus, the Former Husband moved for entry of a final judgment. After a hearing on this motion, the trial court entered its Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. After the final judgment was issued, the Former Husband filed a Motion for Rehearing which was denied. The Former Husband now appeals. Under section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2002), assets should be distributed equally "unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities based on all relevant factors." The statute then lists a number of relevant factors. § 61.075(1)(a)-(j). "[A]ny distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment ... with reference to the factors enumerated in subsection (1)." § 61.075(3)....

...red spouse." Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 545 So.2d 1341, 1346 (Fla.1989). When a trial court makes an equitable distribution award, it must provide specific factual findings that identify and distinguish the marital assets from the non-marital assets. See § 61.075(3) (requiring that "any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence")....

...Winney, 979 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). On remand, the trial judge should make findings regarding the portions of future awards that are marital property. We also reverse and remand for additional findings with regard to the distribution of the marital home. Section 61.075(1) provides that distribution of marital assets generally is equal, unless unequal distribution is justified based on factors including the desirability of retaining the marital home as a residence for any dependent child of the marria...

...In making this determination, the court shall first determine if it would be in the best interest of the dependent child to remain in the marital home; *926 and, if not, whether other equities would be served by giving any other party exclusive use and possession of the marital home. § 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

...et and therefore not subject to equitable distribution. "The standard of review of a trial court's determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion." Kovalchick v. Kovalchick, 841 So.2d 669, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citations omitted). § 61.075(3), Fla....

...[1] When compared to the total contributions that husband made over more than thirty-six years of participating in the plan, the court found that the transfers did not work to convert the portion of his pre-marriage contributions, eighty-nine percent of the plan's value, in whole or in part into a marital asset. Section 61.075(a) defines marital assets as including the "enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting . . . from the efforts of either party during marriage." § 61.075(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). In contrast, nonmarital assets include assets acquired before the marriage and all income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage, unless the parties treat such income as a marital asset. § 61.075(5)(b), Fla....

...*604 fund to another, should make the return on the investments marital property. The trial court correctly concluded that the husband's selection of mutual funds would not constitute an enhancement resulting "from the efforts" of the husband under section 61.075(5)(a)....

of assets upon dissolution of a marriage. See § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2015). Under Florida’s equitable

...Accordingly, the trial court did not award the former husband any credit towards his child support obligations for these deposits. LEGAL ANALYSIS We review both orders before us for an abuse of discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla. 1980). A. The Equitable Distribution Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2005), requires that a court in a dissolution of marriage proceeding "set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities," prior to distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties....

...distribution, notwithstanding the fact that the stocks were used as collateral for the couple's joint debt, where no intermingling of marital and nonmarital assets was found); Siegel v. Siegel, 967 So.2d 349, 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that 61.075 requires that the trial court set apart each party's nonmarital *1160 assets prior to equitably distributing the parties' marital assets); Dyer v. Dyer, 658 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that the former husband's property from a non-interspousal gift may not be distributed under section 61.075(1), although use of the former husband's separate property may be awarded to the former wife to satisfy the former husband's child support obligation). Once the nonmarital assets are set aside to the owner-spouse, the remaining marital assets must be distributed among the parties, beginning with the premise that the distribution should be equal. § 61.075(1). Trial courts are granted discretion to distribute marital assets unequally according to nine factors set forth in section 61.075(1) and any other factors necessary to do "equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1)(h). The distribution of marital assets and liabilities must be supported by "factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in [section 61.075(1)]." § 61.075(3)....

...Upon remand, the trial court should consider that, although one of the factors that may properly be considered in fashioning the equitable distribution of the marital assets is the desirability of maintaining the marital home as a residence for any dependent children of the marriage, section 61.075(1)(h), explicitly states that the preferred means of accomplishing this objective is to grant the custodial parent exclusive use and possession, as opposed to ownership, of the marital home during the minority of the children of the marriage. Section 61.075(1)(h), reads in relevant part: [T]he court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors, including: .......

...arital residence during the minority of the children); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding that to award wife the sole use and possession of marital home was proper only until the children reached majority). Although section 61.075(1)(j), allows a trial court to consider "[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties," when fashioning an unequal distribution of marital assets, this provision is not without limitation....

...e marital assets unequally. See Horne v. Horne, 711 So.2d 1310, 1311-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that wife's frugality in accumulating a 401(k) account significantly greater than husband's 401(k) account was not a sufficient justification, under section 61.075(1)(j), for deviating from equal distribution)....

...s investment of his share of his inheritance fund in the marital home. This argument is insufficient as a matter of law. "Special equity" was abolished in 2008 and was replaced by the term, "a claim for unequal distribution" of marital property. See § 61.075(11) Fla....

...He had to overcome the statutory presumption that jointly titled real estate is marital property and that he did not intend to make a gift to the wife by the act of permitting the title to the home to be made in the joint names of the parties. See § 61.075; Stough v....

...4th DCA 2007); Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So.2d 918, 921 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); Ray v. Ray, 624 So.2d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The husband did not adequately show that the money used to purchase the jointly-titled property was not meant as a gift to the wife as section 61.075 requires....

...ormer husband. Accordingly, the equitable distribution must be reversed and remanded to the trial court either to make an equal distribution of the parties' assets and liabilities or to make specific findings justifying the unequal distribution. See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...For the purpose of determining assets subject to equitable distribution, "[t]he cut-off date ... is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage. " § 61.075(6), Fla....

...*233 On appeal, the Husband contends that the stock in RonLee Construction was a gift and that there is no record evidence to support the court's conclusion that the gift was actually payment for services rendered. We agree and reverse on this issue. Under Section 61.075(5)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2002), assets acquired by non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise or descent are deemed non-marital assets....

...At that time the home would be sold and the proceeds divided. Under the circumstances present here, we agree. Distribution of the marital assets is presumptively to be on an equal basis, although deviation from equal division is permitted where there is a sound reason to do so. See § 61.075(1), Fla....

this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes. _ c. Petitioner should be

...5th DCA 2002) (reiterating that appellant has burden to bring forth record adequate to demonstrate reversible error because trial court is presumed to be correct). In the absence of a transcript, our review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the judgment. Mobley v. Mobley, 18 So.3d 724, 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). *215 Section 61.075(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), defines marital assets to include "assets acquired ... during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them." An asset acquired prior to the marriage is, by definition, non-marital. § 61.075(6)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (2009). Non-marital assets also include those "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." § 61.075(6)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2009). For purposes of this matter, the cut-off date for determining the marital status of assets is the date that the petition for dissolution was filed. See § 61.075(7), Fla....

...This finding fails to support a determination that the Jacksonville condominium was a non-marital asset. It is silent on when and how the former wife acquired her interest in the property. Accordingly, we reverse this part of the final judgment and remand for specific findings consistent with the requirements of section 61.075....

...n additional $15,000.00, to lend and a $6,000, withdrawal for repayment of a loan." The trial court equally distributed the $35,000 to the parties. However, the court did not address the additional $15,000, which it determined to be a marital asset. § 61.075(6)(a), Fla....

based outside the pleadings cannot stand). Section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2011), does not authorize

...Moreover, no determination has been made concerning whether these debts are marital or nonmarital. The distribution of marital debts should include identification of the liability and designation of which spouse shall be responsible for the liability. See § 61.075, Fla....

...Chapter 61, Florida Statutes, governs the dissolution of marriage. Section 61.079(4)(a) provides that “[p]arties to a premarital agreement may contract with respect to . . . [t]he disposition of property upon . . . marital dissolution.” And section 61.075, Florida Statutes, addresses the “[e]quitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities.” This section describes what constitutes marital assets and liabilities. § 61.075(6), Fla. Stat. Nonmarital assets and liabilities include those “excluded from marital assets and liabilities by valid written agreement of the parties.” § 61.075(6)(b) 4., Fla....

those factors.”). Equitable Distribution Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that in

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(1). b. ___ The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(2). b. ____ The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...You should indicate to whom you believe the item(s) or debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use this column if property/debt was owned/owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) *1113 A....

...You should indicate to whom you believe the item belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if property was owned by one spouse before the marriage. See the "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | A | B | C | | ASSETS: DESCRIPTION O...

...You should indicate to whom you believe the debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if the debt was owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the "General information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) *1126 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | A | B | C | | LIABILITIES DESCRIP...

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(1). b. ___ The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(2). b. ___ The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...ourt made specific findings of fact regarding the wife's lack of contribution to the marriage, the short term nature of the marriage, and the husband's contribution to the wife's career development, all of which were appropriate considerations under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...e. Citing the parties’ “past earning histories and future ability to earn income, and that the Wife is earning below the poverty level,” the trial court ordered a 60/40 distribution of the marital assets and liabilities favoring the wife. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2013), governing distribution of marital assets and liabilities, provides that the trial court must “begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal” and requires consideration and factual findings in the judgment regarding nine specified factors in assessing whether an unequal distribution is warranted. § 61.075(1)(a)–(j), (3), Fla....

...; Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (same); Esaw v. Esaw, 965 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (finding that, in absence of transcript, wife could not demonstrate lack of findings required by sections 61.08, governing alimony, and 61.075, governing equitable distribution, required reversal)....

...The former wife cross appeals, challenging the trial court's failure to impute income to the former husband for the purpose of awarding her alimony. Because the order appealed contains none of the factual findings required by chapter 61, frustrating appellate review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997), provides in relevant part: (1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, ......

...Rejecting the former husband's only significant point on his appeal from a final judgment of dissolution, we conclude that, after appropriately fixing the characterization of the marital home as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution on the date of filing of the complaint as required by section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2003), [1] see Rao-Nagineni v. Rao, 895 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the trial court did not err in determining as a matter of the discretion conferred by section 61.075(6) the (much lower) valuation of the property at the earlier date of separation....

...reasoning and rationale in issuing the referenced order establishing the valuation date, in order that there is no confusion as to this issue. In determining *953 the value of the specific marital assets, the Court notes that pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 61.075(6), a trial court has significant discretion in determining the date of valuation of marital assets. Canakaris [v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980) ]; Moore v. Moore, 543 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Szemborski v. Szemborski, 530 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Fla. Stat. § 61.075(6) provides that the date for determining the value of marital assets and liabilities is whatever date the trial judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances. The trial court, in its discretion, may value different assets and liabilities as of different dates as the circumstances require. Fla. Stat. § 61.075(6); Hicks v....

...the issue of the separation date. Accordingly, the Husband's share of the former marital home shall be determined as of the separation date. No error nor need for discussion has been presented as to appellant's remaining points. Affirmed. NOTES [1] Section 61.075(6) reads: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may...

...mines is just and equitable under the circumstances. Different assets may be valued as of different dates, as, in the judge's discretion, the circumstances require. (Emphasis added). [2] Although Perlmutter was essentially overruled on this issue by section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), it was restored to full force and vigor by the later amendment of section 61.075(6) contained in chapter 94-204, § 1, at 1172, Laws of Florida, which applies to this case....

...Moreover, no request to set aside the agreement appears in the record, and the court failed to address the impact of the agreement in the final judgment. Lastly, the trial court erred in distributing the marital assets unequally, ultimately favoring the former wife. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial court to distribute marital assets and liabilities between the parties beginning with the premise that an equal distribution should occur....

...tal property." DeLoach v. DeLoach, 590 So.2d 956, 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) quoting Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 267 (Fla. 1986), quoting Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 704-05, 463 N.E.2d 15, 20-21 (1984); see § 61.075(5)(a)4 (Fla....

...Renzer, 553 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Zachary v. Zachary, 551 So.2d 577 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Harris v. Harris, 498 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hiler v. Hiler, 442 So.2d 373 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...s on his pre-marital interest in the plan, contrary to the clear language of the parties' agreement. We agree, and reverse. We recognize that the issue here is to be decided under principles of contract interpretation, not by the statutory scheme of section 61.075(5)(a)4, Florida Statutes (1995), or else we would simply reverse on the authority of Blase v....

...We agree that the trial court erred in denying appellant any interest in the vested retirement plan, which is a marital asset, and remand for further consideration according to the method set forth in DeLoach. Appellant further contends the trial court failed to make required findings in accordance with section 61.075, Florida Statutes, clearly identifying marital and non-marital assets and establishing values and valuation dates for marital assets....

...1st DCA 1992) (findings as to valuation), and Smith v. Smith, 571 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (identification of marital and non-marital property). See also Glover v. Glover, 601 So.2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (trial court cannot meet its burden under section 61.075 if parties fail to provide required information); and Moon v....

...The final judgment does not specify which debts the trial court was referring to, nor does it state the amount of debt or when and how the husband is to pay the debts. The wife contends that in the final judgment the trial court failed to make the findings of fact required by sections 61.08(2) and 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1999). In particular, the wife complains about the trial court's failure to identify the amount of the marital debt. Section 61.075(3)(c) provides that any distribution of marital assets or liabilities shall be supported by specific written findings of fact....

...2d DCA 2001), the Court held that a prenuptial agreement providing that: "neither *267 party shall make any claim or acquire any interest in the other party's separate property if it increases in value during the marriage" addressed only passive appreciation of property and did not preclude application of section 61.075, Florida Statutes which provides that increases in value of a non-marital asset that are attributable to marital labor or funds are subject to equitable distribution. Doig, 787 So.2d at 103; see also § 61.075, Fla....

...See Cameron v. Cameron, 591 So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). However, we reverse the valuation of the enhancement on the ground that there is no Record evidence to support the trial court's valuation of the enhancement value of the non-marital property/assets. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, requires that any distribution of assets or liabilities be supported by factual findings in the judgment based on competent substantial evidence. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Where the Final Judgment does not identify the property, nor its value, we cannot affirm the court's rationale for the distribution. Accordingly, we reverse the calculation of the enhancement value and remand for *268 further proceedings consistent with section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...d designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability; (d) Any other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat....

...Here the bulk of the parties' assets was lost to foreclosure and repossession. Of the remaining marital assets, Victoria was awarded the net proceeds (about $163,000) from the sale of the parties' two lakefront lots. Victoria was also awarded over $51,000 as a cash payment for the purpose of equitable distribution. See § 61.075(2), Fla.Stat....

...guilty of "intentional dissipation" of those assets. Further, it is inappropriate to award through equitable distribution an asset (the boat) that the court knows has previously been lost in foreclosure, before the judgment is signed. NOTES [1] See § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat....

...Lagstrom, 662 So.2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So.2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Romano v. Romano, 632 So.2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); McMonagle v. McMonagle, 617 So.2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). [3] § 61.075(1)(i), Fla.Stat....

...The Husband contends that he is entitled to over 40% of the Wife's 401(k) plan as his equitable distribution while the Wife contends that he should not get more than 25% of her plan. The Wife also contends that it is manifestly unjust for the Husband to leave the marriage, file for divorce, and then § 61.075, Florida Statutes, to obtain 50% of her 401(k) plan....

...The parties offered conflicting testimony regarding the fair market and replacement values of all other assets divided between them.... [The wife's plan] grew as a result of the Wife's contribution to it, her employer's matching contribution, and the growth from investments. Considering the criteria of § 61.075, including the Wife's contribution to the acquisition of the 401(k) plan and subsection "(j) any other factors necessary to do justice and equity between the parties" such as the Husband precipitously leaving the Wife and children without a...

...However, the court is directed to distribute the marital assets and liabilities "in such proportions as are equitable" after considering various enumerated factors as well as any other factors "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1)....

...Bell, 642 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995). In Bell, this court held that, because a conviction for child molestation did not result in any depletion of marital assets or visitation of liability upon the wife, use of section 61.075(1)(j) to justify an unequal distribution of marital assets "would be directly contrary to the rule prohibiting unequal distribution of marital assets, or an award or increase in alimony, based upon misconduct, except to the extent that the misconduct results in the dissipation of marital assets." Id....

...I read the trial court's order to say that the thriftiness of the wife and the spendthrift behavior of the husband throughout the marriage constitute unusual circumstances which justified the unequal but equitable distribution pursuant to chapter 61. Sections 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part as follows: [T]he court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for unequal distribution based on all relevant factors, including: (g) The...

...ns made, as the judgment indicates that the court believed that the asset distribution favored the husband. On the other hand, if the court intended the result, then it is not supported with written findings justifying the disparity of distribution. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...on would be to grant Theresa exclusive possession of the marital residence until the children reach the age of majority or she remarries. See Cooper v. Cooper, 760 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cabrera v. Cabrera, 484 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); section 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

...Augustine, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. COBB, Judge. The trial judge in the instant case granted a judgment of dissolution, distributed assets of the parties, and awarded rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony. Unfortunately, the court did not comply with either section 61.075(3) or section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1995) in respect to the requirement of factual findings....

...inancial circumstances change. Equitable Distribution The husband next challenges the distribution of assets. He claims that because he purchased the marital home with his pre-marital assets that he should have received a special equity in the home. Section 61.075(5)(a)5, Florida Statutes *450 (1997), creates a presumption that any real property held as a tenancy by the entireties regardless if acquired prior to the marriage is a marital asset....

...Accordingly, it was error not to observe the stipulation, and to incorporate it into the final judgment. The wife concedes that the trial court erred when it failed to observe the stipulation. However, she argues that the error was harmless. We are unable to agree. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), mandated that the trial court equitably distribute the marital assets and liabilities of the parties....

...Sweeney, 583 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). On remand, the trial court is directed to observe the parties' stipulation regarding the marital home, and then to distribute equitably the remaining marital assets and liabilities according to the requirements of section 61.075, Florida Statutes. The trial court shall support its scheme of distribution by findings of fact. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to make the appropriate recalculation. Marital Assets and Liabilities The appellant argues, and the appellee agrees, that the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings concerning the marital liabilities and the value of marital assets. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that any distribution of marital assets and liabilities shall be supported by specific written findings of fact. The trial court must clearly identify the assets, valuation of the assets and ownership interests. § 61.075(3)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court also must identify the marital liabilities and specify which spouse is responsible for each liability. § 61.075(3)(c), Fla....

...this bitter and hotly-contested dissolution action. Although we may agree that the trial court's decision appears to be fair in light of the long-term marriage, we conclude that it is not legally sustainable under the law of equitable distribution. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1995), sets forth the rules for equitable distribution, including definitions of marital and nonmarital property. Section 61.075(5)(b)2 specifically defines nonmarital assets as "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." We conclude the status of the inheri...

...d awarded all furnishings and other marital assets to Wife. Distribution of marital assets must be equal unless there is justification in the record supporting the court's disparate treatment. E.g., Longo v. Longo, 533 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); § 61.075(1), Fla....

...We also find that the court abused its discretion in determining that the ChemPlus account was a marital asset. Under the equitable distribution statute, non-marital assets include "[a]ssets acquired ... by either party prior to the marriage, and assets acquired... in exchange for such assets...." Section 61.075(5)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1997); Heinrich v....

...We reverse the final judgment only with respect to Appellant's other challenged rulings and remand with directions to the trial court to recalculate Appellee's share in Appellant's retirement benefits in accordance with the Florida equitable distribution statute, sections 61.075 & 61.076, Florida Statutes (1997), and related case law, and to make findings of fact; and to grant Appellant an opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the request for permanent alimony....

...court. In its oral pronouncement, the court correctly distinguished between the marital and non-marital components of Appellant's military retirement benefits, consistent with the distinction made in the Florida equitable distribution statute. See §§ 61.075(5)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1997) ("marital assets and liabilities" include "[a]ll vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement [and] pension ......

...Without supporting findings of fact, this omission is error as a matter of law and requires reversal of the distribution of the military retirement benefits. See Boyett v. Boyett, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997) (in accordance with definition of marital assets in § 61.075(5)(a), Fla....

...Absent the entry and filing of a stipulation or other agreement in a contested dissolution action, the equitable distribution statute requires the trial court to make specific written factual findings to support the distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...*174 Meyer, 525 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). If, indeed, the trial court intended to calculate Appellee's interest in Appellant's military pension without excluding extramarital benefits, then findings to support such distribution are necessary. See § 61.075(3), (5)(a)(4), & (6), Fla....

...Allison, 605 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The overriding concern in this proceeding is to do equity. The dissolution statute itself states that its provisions are "in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between the parties." Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...*140 This 50% interest was inherited by the husband in his sole name. The other 50% interest was jointly acquired during the marriage by the husband and wife. The trial court awarded this entire parcel of real property to the wife as part of its plan of equitable distribution. Section 61.075(3)(b)2 of the Florida Statutes (1989) provides that non-marital assets include assets acquired separately by either party by non-interspousal bequest, devise, or descent....

...band's premarital property, the trial court should consider whether the mortgage was serviced with marital funds, if there were perhaps improvements made with marital funds, and whether the value of the home may have appreciated during the marriage. Section 61.075(5)(a) 2 includes under marital assets "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital...

...fact as to identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests, identification of marital assets including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse is to get each asset, and additional stated elements. § 61.075(3)....

...Marasco of Marasco & Wilkes, Rockledge, for Appellant. Stephen M. Brewer of Stephen M. Brewer, P.A., Titusville, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The final judgment in this case fails to identify all of the marital debts, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1997) (distribution of all marital liabilities shall include specific written findings of fact as to the identification of the liabilities)....

...bts constitutes reversible error and requires remand for appropriate findings to be made); Brock v. Brock, 690 So.2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (same). We reverse the equitable distribution and remand to the trial court to make the findings required by section 61.075....

Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1972). Section 61.075, Florida’s equitable distribution statute,

...The parties agreed on the value of the home as $90,000.00 today which results in an increase in value of $3,090.00 during the marriage. The court's reasoning and judgment were erroneous. By both statute and case law, entireties property is presumed to be marital, regardless of the date of acquisition. § 61.075(5)(a)5., Fla....

...Robertson, 593 So.2d 491 (Fla.1991). In its order, the trial court suggests that the wife had the burden to prove the husband intended to make a gift of the home to the wife. That was wrong as a matter of law. The burden was on the husband to prove that a gift was not intended. § 61.075(5)(a)5., Fla....

...this home. To make an equitable distribution of marital property, "the [trial] court must begin with the presumption that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors. " § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2000)(emphasis added). Section 61.075(1) lists a number of factors to be considered in making an equitable distribution of marital property....

...eposits purchased with that income were "treated, used or relied upon" by the Holdens as a marital asset during the marriage and, therefore, that the trial court was correct in concluding that the certificates of deposits were marital property under section 61.075(5)(b)3, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...by Williams and that he "guessed" that these funds were returned to his Wife when the restaurant was later sold. This testimony, however, cannot constitute competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of commingling under section 61.075(5)(b)3. By itself, the filing of a joint federal income tax return that includes the separate non-marital income of one spouse does not convert the separate income into marital property under section 61.075(5)(b)3....

...e appreciation and reinvestment of dividends to its present value of $35,000. The stock was at all times solely in the husband's name. Other than advising the husband to reinvest the dividends, the wife did nothing to enhance the value of the stock. Section 61.075(5)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1997), specifically defines nonmarital assets as "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." Thus, as a...

...2d DCA 1998), aff'd, 736 So.2d 1177 (Fla.1999). Next, the trial court found the 1965 Chevrolet Corvette automobile, valued at $20,000, to be a marital asset. The husband acquired and paid for the Corvette prior to the marriage, and it remained titled solely in his name throughout the marriage. Section 61.075(5)(b)1, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that nonmarital assets include "[a]ssets acquired ......

...We next address the trial court's award of $12,000 in Publix stock as a marital asset to the husband. The uncontroverted evidence was that this stock had been depleted by the parties' mutual consent nine months before the date the petition for dissolution was filed. Section 61.075(6) provides: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified and classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties entered into a valid separation agreement, such other date a...

supported by competent, substantial evidence.” (citing § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2005)). We note that the value

...nal property. County of Pasco v. Riehl, 620 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Levine v. Knowles, 197 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). There is no authority which provides for a trial court to grant custody or visitation pertaining to personal property. § 61.075, Fla....

...Holmes appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The husband first asserts that he should have been allocated a greater share of the value of the marital home. He contends that the trial court erred in its application of the equitable distribution statute, section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...d had no interest therein. That argument was entirely without merit. Under the equitable distribution statute, a marital asset is, among other things, an asset "acquired ... during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them... ." § 61.075(5)(a)(1), Fla....

...The trial court agreed with the husband's position that the husband was entitled to a share of the value of the home. The court structured this as a $20,000 lump-sum payment to be made at such time as the marital home is sold. A lump-sum *514 payment is a permissible option under the statute. § 61.075(9), Fla....

...In making this determination, the court shall first determine if it would be in the best interest of the dependent child to remain in the marital home; and, if not, whether other equities would be served by giving any other party exclusive use and possession of the marital home. § 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

...If we have misunderstood the intent of the trial court, we note that the equitable distribution statute allows the trial court the discretion to fashion the award in accordance with "[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." Id. § 61.075(1)(i); see also Robertson v....

...ating to medical insurance premiums and medical expenses, and alimony, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] The parties were married in 1955. [3] § 61.075, Fla....

...e that such discretion was breached. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). *739 In determining a fair distribution of the parties' marital assets, the trial court allocated $15,000.00 in credit card debts to the husband pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1987), which requires the distribution of liabilities as well as assets....

...His income was always the primary support of the family, and credit was extended to them because of it. Maria testified that most of the $15,000 debt was incurred for family expenses and furnishing the marital home they were forced to sell. Her testimony was not refuted. In addition, this case is not controlled by section 61.075(1)(g), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...uitable distribution. This lawsuit was filed on June 22, 1988 and the husband's counterpetition was filed July 22, 1988. The new equitable distribution statute applies only to actions commenced after its effective date: October 1, 1988. But, even if section 61.075(1)(g) were applicable in this case, I do not think it was intended to approve a dollar-for-dollar trade of assets for liabilities in a case such as this where one spouse has a vastly superior earning ability and the trade off reduces the other spouse's share of the marital assets to zero....

...If Kenneth were to retire at his present base salary of $26,000, he would receive $14,560 per year. [2] Thus one year of his retirement is roughly equal to the joint debts he has to pay now. Kenneth, however, has the benefit of the remaining years of his pension while Maria has no retirement income. Section 61.075 hopefully was not designed to sanction such inequality....

...Gibbons, 560 So.2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Inclusion of the fees award may be necessary in this case to help justify the disparity in distribution but it doesn't help enough to outweigh the mischief it will cause. I would reverse. W. SHARP, J., concurs. NOTES [1] See also § 61.075(1)(g), Fla....

...The wife fails to note, however, that legislative changes subsequent to Ball, as construed and applied by the Florida Supreme Court, have effectively overruled Ball. In *267 Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1991), the court found that section 61.075(3)(a)5 "appears to undo the `no gift' presumption evolved by Ball v....

...Here, while the trial court obviously did not overlook the fact that 35 shares of stock in File Minders were issued to each of the parties individually, the court did not give full consideration to the respective rights of the parties in the light of their contributions to the business, and especially in the light of section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes, which defines "marital assets." Under section 61.075(5)(a)1, assets acquired during the marriage, individually by either spouse, or jointly by them are "marital assets." Under section 61.075(5)(a)3, interspousal gifts during the marriage also are included as marital assets....

...We fail to follow the logic of this implication. Before the transfer of stock to Griner, the sole ownership of the corporation was represented by the 35 shares of stock held by the husband. The husband's stock interest was acquired during the marriage and was a marital asset under section 61.075(5)(a)1....

...Guerini of Robin Roshkind, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Susan G. Chopin of Chopin & Chopin, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee. IMPERATO, CYNTHIA, Associate Judge. We affirm and remand for findings in accordance with this opinion. It appears the trial court, pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes, sought to divide the marital assets equally and allow the wife to live in the marital home until the children were emancipated....

...usband's valuation of the home as of the date of the final hearing. *571 The standard of review for a trial court's selection of a valuation date for a marital asset is abuse of discretion. See Byers v. Byers, 910 So.2d 336, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that the date of filing of the petition for dissolution is generally the latest date for identifying and classifying marital assets, but the court may value marital assets on a date that the court determines is just and equitable....

...uance of a divorce decree, neither party argues that the injunction conveyed any property rights. The injunction clearly was not an award of alimony or a distribution of marital assets under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 61.08 (alimony); Fla. Stat. § 61.075 (property disposition)....

...licable to bar equitable distribution of pension benefits, or invalid to the extent they conflict with equitable distribution laws, like Florida's, which make such pension assets marital and require equitable distribution to the marital parties. [2] Section 61.075(5)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2000) defines marital assets and liability to include: All vested and nonvested benefits, rights and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation and insurance plans and programs....

...ich did not involve exceptions set forth in constitution; court refused to enforce waiver on public policy grounds). But, a waiver in favor of a former spouse to implement the distribution of marital assets is not against public policy of the state. Section 61.075 clearly designates this pension as a marital asset, i.e., the former wife's property. And it also provides that the judgment of dissolution shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance. § 61.075(4), Fla. Stat. There is no public policy I am aware of that prevents a court from effectively transferring possession of an asset from a person who does not own it, to one who does under equitable circumstances. See § 61.075(9), Fla....

...[3] The excellent opinions of the First District Court in DeLoach and Kirkland demonstrate why this court is wrong to require that the valuation of the marital pension to occur no later than the judgment, even though distribution will not occur then. There is no such requirement in Chapter 61. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...December 12, 2006. Janis L. Burke, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellant. Stephen S. Poche', Shalimar, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In the absence of a valid separation agreement, a married couple's assets remain "marital" until the date dissolution papers are filed. See § 61.075(6), Fla. Stat. (2005); Rao-Nagineni v. Rao, 895 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2003), provides a bright line rule for setting the date to be used in determining the marital classification of assets and liabilities....

...Section 61.14 makes clear that only alimony and child support, or child custody, or child visitation may be modified after final judgment. In other words, under chapter 61 the property distribution is conclusive with the final judgment. A property distribution under section 61.075 may not be modified even if the needs of a party change after the judgment....

...[2] We do not address or decide whether the text of this particular attorney's fees provision in this PSA operates as a waiver by both parties of any right to attorney's fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1995), in the original divorce case or in any future proceeding. [3] See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...began making the payments again. The trial judge relied on this information when determining that the disability benefits were a marital asset that should be divided equally between the husband and the wife. Both the trial court and the wife rely on section 61.075(5)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (2007), as support for the conclusion that the disability insurance policy benefits are a marital asset....

...That section states that marital assets and liabilities include "all vested and nonvested benefits, rights and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs." § 61.075(5)(a)(4), Fla....

...atch 22" situation created by their absence. We address this issue as well. The husband purchased furniture at Rooms To Go and incurred a debt of $2,607 four days after the wife filed the petition for dissolution. The wife argues, and we agree, that section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (2001), establishes a cut-off date for determining whether assets and liabilities are classified as marital. Section 61.075(6) provides in part: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other d...

...Shepard $300-$400 per week throughout the parties' seven-year separation.) We reverse. In Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court mandated that marital assets be equitably distributed. This has since been codified by statute. Section 61.075, Fla....

...Occasionally, Leon would wash and polish his Mercedes automobile and BMW motorcycle, presumably acquired with Mary's money. Otherwise, his work around the house, and his work ethic in general, was next to nothing. Leon was living off Mary's money. The equitable distribution of assets is governed by section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1999). Marital assets include "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets, resulting from the efforts of either party during the marriage" (emphasis added). § 61.075(5)(a)2., Fla....

...First, the court determined that Leon was not authorized to make withdrawals from the account. This finding, however, is refuted by the testimony of both parties. Thus, the finding is not based upon competent substantial evidence, is clearly erroneous, and cannot be used to support the judgment. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...er factors *547 which may affect the asset. Nor does Florida law require a party to show how his or her actions caused a benefit. All that is required is that the asset's value be enhanced during the marriage by the labor or efforts of either party. § 61.075(5)(a)2....

...These decisions were often made without Mary's knowledge or approval and on several occasions she took exception to them. These facts are susceptible of only one conclusion: both parties actively managed the CMA account, contributing marital labor and efforts. Accordingly, pursuant to section 61.075(5)(a)2., Pagano and Fredel v. Fredel, 531 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1989), the increased value of the CMA account was a marital asset which should have been distributed under section 61.075....

...Net accounts receivable were found to be worth $489,247.00. The figures were taken from trial testimony and from the former husband's accountant's valuation of the marital estate as of September 30, 1988, the date for determination of marital assets pursuant to section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...We feel, however, that Leone is to be narrowly construed due to its unusual facts. On remand, the trial court should include accounts receivable within the marital estate, to be distributed in a manner that the trial court deems equitable given the overall division of assets. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The parties shall share equally the responsibility for joint debts incurred from March 12, 1988 (date of marriage) to August 12, 1994 (date of separation). Each party shall be responsible for and hold the other harmless for any individual indebtedness incurred before, after or during said periods of time. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), mandates that, in dissolution actions, the trial court distribute equitably the parties' marital assets and liabilities. To facilitate appellate review of this task, section 61.075(3) requires that explicit findings be made: (3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by fac...

...d designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability; (d) Any other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat....

...nt. We find puzzling the trial court's award for an indeterminate period of exclusive use and possession of the home (and the financial burdens incident thereto) to the husband. However, because the trial court failed to make findings as required by section 61.075(3), we are unable to determine whether the parties' marital assets and liabilities have been equitably distributed....

..."All real property held by the parties as tenants by the entireties ... shall be presumed to be a marital asset. If, in any case, a party makes a claim to the contrary, the burden of proof shall be *1126 on the party asserting the claim for a special equity." § 61.075(5)(a)5., Fla....

...It appears in this case that the trial judge equally divided the parties' marital assets, and liabilities, and the judgment set forth the identity and value of the marital assets and liabilities. However, it does not explain nor justify the equitable distribution with reference to the factors listed in section 61.075(1), as is expressly required by section 61.075(3)....

...onal $28,000 of equity in the Florida home which the wife would receive. Although it is within the trial judge's discretion to award an unequal distribution of marital assets, the court must justify such a distribution based on all relevant factors. § 61.075(1), Fla....

...cluded, decisive. Nor is the fact that the former husband received an assignment of the note from Robinson. Under the principles of equitable distribution, a dissolution judge must equitably distribute the parties' assets and liabilities pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...e an inequitable distribution of the marital assets. Because the final judgment contains no specific findings regarding the value of each significant asset and further fails to include a marital/non-marital designation for each asset, as required by section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), we are not able to review the fairness of the asset distribution....

distribution should be upheld because, under section 61.075(l)(j), the trial court may consider any factor

...perty is nonmarital and which is marital. A valuation of the significant marital assets shall be made and "any distribution of marital assets ... shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment ... based on competent substantial evidence ..." § 61.075(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). "[T]he court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets," § 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2005), and those nonmarital assets shall not be subject to equitable distribution. Nonmarital property includes "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." § 61.075(5)(b)2, Fla....

...al assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both," is considered a marital asset. 923 So.2d at 1238 (quoting § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...Edwards, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in all respects except as to the court's imposition of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) in connection with the husband's municipal pension as a firefighter. The trial court correctly recognized, pursuant to section 61.075(5)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1999), that the husband's pension was a marital asset and that the wife, Carol Simone Edwards, had an interest therein....

...The trial court ruled that the Witowskis' antenuptial agreement protected the entire retirement fund, irrespective of enhancement during the marriage. The trial court entered its final judgment of dissolution of marriage on November 10, 1998. I. MARITAL CONTRIBUTION TO PENSION At the outset, we observe that section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997), governs equitable distribution in dissolution proceedings....

...hed as nonmarital assets or liabilities are presumed to be marital assets and liabilities. Such presumption is overcome by a showing that the assets and liabilities are nonmarital assets and liabilities. Id. (emphasis added). Pursuant to subsections 61.075(5)(a)2 and 4 above, the marital increase in a spouse's pension is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution, unless a valid written agreement or other proof specifically establishes it as a nonmarital asset....

...Therefore, because we have determined in this case that the Witowskis' antenuptial agreement does not protect the marital portion of the husband's retirement fund, the wife is entitled to equitable distribution of that portion attributable to the marital contributions pursuant to section 61.075....

...However, we need not determine the applicability of the federal law. Even if the agreement was an invalid waiver under either of the federal provisions, the premarital portion of the pension account would be a non-marital asset as defined by Florida law. See § 61.075(5)(b)(1); Reyher, 495 So.2d at 800; Griffiths, 563 So.2d at 774....

...He requests that his obligation to pay Anna retroactive temporary alimony be offset by Anna's use of his share of the parties' savings. The final judgment of dissolution is not clear with regard to the disposition of the parties' joint savings account. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Noah, 491 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Fla.1986) ("[T]he trial court should be given an opportunity on remand to reconsider the entire distribution scheme, including ... alimony, as these are interrelated remedies and part of one overall scheme."). Rose M. Hardee having abandoned the cross-appeal, we affirm on cross-appeal. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, "requires that the trial court distribute marital assets and liabilities between the parties beginning with the premise that an equal distribution should occur." Hoirup v. Hoirup, 862 So.2d 780, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quotation omitted). The trial court "may make an unequal distribution of assets, provided the court supplies *716 a specific finding of fact to justify its unequal distribution." Id. See also § 61.075(1), Fla....

...4th DCA 2002) ("Only that portion of damages paid to the injured spouse as compensation for past lost wages and loss of earning capacity is to be considered marital property."). The trial court also erred in treating a $9,000 debt incurred by Ms. Hardee after the petition was filed as a marital liability. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...ssets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement . . ., or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage."); Guelpa v. Guelpa, 885 So.2d 409, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("[S]ection 61.075(6), allows the trial court discretion to value assets as of different dates, but does not allow such discretion with regard to determining assets and liabilities.......

...hall be solely responsible for any indebtedness in their respective names. The court did not address the $500 loan. The judgment made no determination that either loan was a nonmarital liability, despite a statutory mandate for such a finding. See §§ 61.075(1) & (3)(c), Fla....

...Green, 788 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("The court's failure to make findings clearly identifying the marital liabilities and designating which spouse was responsible for each, as required by section 61.075(3)(c), constitutes reversible error.")....

...The trial court also found that the wife borrowed the funds after she removed the husband from the marital home. This factual finding does have some support in the record, but it does not alter the statutory cut-off date for the determination of marital liabilities. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...We recognize the trial court has some discretion to unequally distribute marital liabilities; however, we need not here reach the question of whether a correct finding of no benefit to one spouse would support an unequal distribution of the liability under section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...On appeal, the court noted, "Since the final judgment in that action was silent as to the stock, the parties, by operation of law, became owners as tenants in common on the date of the final judgment." Id. Equitable distribution became the law in Florida under Canakaris in 1980. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes, was codified several years later. See Ch. 88-98, § 1, at 463, Laws of Fla. The statute now controls equitable distribution of marital property. Section 61.075 does not change the general rule in Florida that upon dissolution of marriage, tenants by the entirety become tenants in common....

...e Shannis, 229 B.R. 234 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1999) (noting that under Florida law a final judgment of dissolution of marriage severs tenancy by entirety and the parties become, by operation of law, tenants in common upon rendition of the judgment). Under section 61.075, the dissolution court must set aside each spouse's non-marital assets, and "in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the trial court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal." § 61.075(1), Fla....

...Bailey of Sullivan, Bailey and Bailey, P.A., Pompano Beach, for appellee. GROSS, J. The primary issue in this case is whether a house and $100,000 which were bequeathed by a parishioner to the husband, a clergyman, are non-marital property within the meaning of section 61.075(5)(b)2., Florida Statutes (1999)....

...he church by the name of Theresa Powell." Recognizing that it was his job that brought the husband in contact with Powell, the court observed that the "help and friendship" he gave to Powell went beyond his "mandatory... job duties" with the church. Section 61.075(5)(b)2....

...Contrary to the wife's argument, nothing in the statute limits its scope to inheritance from blood relatives. Because the statute specifically addresses the treatment of assets acquired by bequest or devise, we decline the wife's request to reclassify the Powell assets under the more general category of section 61.075(5)(a)1., which defines a marital asset as including an asset "acquired ......

...worked for the duration of the twenty three year marriage for his family's businesses, which during the marriage he came to own. While it is true that assets acquired by non-interspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent are non-marital assets under section 61.075(5)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1993), this is not true of the increase in value of these assets occurring during the marriage, as the result of marital efforts....

...Marital appreciation of separately owned assets is subject to equitable distribution if either spouse expended marital labor on that asset during the marriage. Watford v. Watford, 605 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Turner v. Turner, 529 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); § 61.075(5)(a)2, Fla....

...acquisition by the husband, if the husband expended marital labor on these businesses. She, herself, did not have to work in these concerns before she was entitled to share in the fruits of her husband's labor. Further, equitable distribution under section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1993) requires consideration of a number of factors including: (a) The contribution to the marriage by each spouse, including contributions to the *885 care and education of the children and services as homemaker....

...The court did not abuse its discretion by valuing the marital residence as close to the date of dissolution as possible after contrasting Edel's maintenance of and contribution to the marital residence with Walker's lack of contribution. See Catalfumo, 704 So.2d at 1099; § 61.075(6), Fla....

equitable distribution schedule, pursuant to section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, the Fourth District reviewed

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(1). b. ___ The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(1). b. ____ The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...With respect to the Wisconsin state retirement plan, the husband contends he is entitled to some special equity. We agree. Premarital contributions to retirement pensions should be excluded when distributing marital assets. Bain v. Bain, 553 So.2d 1389, 1391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Section 61.075(5)(a)4, Florida Statutes (1991), classifies "all vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement plans" as a "marital asset." (Emphasis added)....

...Moon, 594 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the appellate court remanded for a determination of whether the portion of the husband's retirement account acquired after separation was a marital or non-marital asset, but this case was decided under a former version of section 61.075, which gave the trial court discretion to use a date other than the filing date to identify marital and non-marital assets and liabilities....

...nd all of the marital liabilities. [1] This left Former Husband with a net worth of negative $18,700 and Former Wife with a net worth of $7,500. The trial court made no findings justifying this unequal distribution; therefore, we reverse and remand. § 61.075, Fla.Stat.; Taber v....

...First, it erred in finding the family farm to be the nonmarital property of Former Husband without considering the evidence presented that all debts on the farm were being paid from marital funds. Such evidence shows that the farm, or at least a portion of it, was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. § 61.075, Fla.Stat.; Berki v....

...We affirm, however, that part of the final order nullifying the transfer of the farm deed into both parties' names. There is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that Former Wife, in effect, deceived Former Husband into the transfer. § 61.075(1)(j), Fla.Stat.; see Seijas v....

money was withdrawn and-spent over the years. Section 61.075(6)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (2013), defines

filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage.” § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2014). The evidence established

...We address only the court's distribution of the massage therapy business and the attorney's fees. We affirm on the other issues. In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court must make an equitable distribution of all marital assets and liabilities. See § 61.075, Fla....

...The court ordered the Husband to pay a $30,000 marital debt as well as all other joint or marital credit card debt incurred before the parties' separation. Each party was responsible for the credit card expenses incurred after the parties' separation. Section 61.075(3)(b), (c), Florida Statutes (1999), requires a court to identify marital assets and liabilities, and to designate which spouse shall be entitled to each asset and which spouse shall be responsible for each liability. In distributing marital assets and liabilities, section 61.075 requires that a trial court begin with the premise that the distribution be equal, unless there is justification for an unequal distribution....

...See also Prest v. Tracy, 749 So.2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). At least when requested by the parties, the trial court must set forth its basis for distributing marital assets and liabilities in its final judgment whether the distribution is equal or unequal. § 61.075(3); Lavelle v. Lavelle, 634 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In this case, the distribution of liabilities appears unequal in favor of the Wife. The trial court's findings do not satisfy the requirements of section 61.075....

...Although the husband did not attempt to modify his pleadings to conform to the evidence presented, [1] the trial court specifically found that the CD's were *1269 non-marital assets and set them aside to the husband in the final judgment. We conclude that this finding was error. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), allows the trial court to set apart each spouse's non-marital assets and then to equitably divide the marital assets....

...In its final judgment, however, the court did not make any finding as to the value of the property. II. The husband's first claim is that the court abused its discretion in determining that the home at 17333 St. James Court was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. Section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (1997), defines a marital asset as those "[a]ssets acquired ......

...Singleton, 696 So.2d 1338, 1338-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(citing Keaton v. Keaton, 634 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)); see also Reich v. Reich, 652 So.2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So.2d 1216, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); § 61.075(3), Fla....

...sue of fact concerning whether John Hadden has an ownership interest in the property. As for Parcel A, there are two circumstances in Florida wherein the entry of a dissolution judgment operates to transfer title to real property. One is outlined in section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and the other is set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570. Section 61.075(4), provides in pertinent part: 61.075 Equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities.— * * * * * * (4) The judgment distributing assets shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release, or acquisition which is recorded in the county w...

...Instead, the judgment merely directed the father to convey all right, title, and interest in Parcel A to the mother within 20 days of the entry of the judgment. As noted above, no such transfer ever occurred. Mr. Cirelli further maintains that, even if we conclude that section 61.075(4) and rule 1.570 do not apply to the facts in this case, the trial court's ruling concerning Parcel A can be affirmed because our courts have recognized certain additional circumstances where the entry of a dissolution judgment conveys title to real property....

...On remand, the trial court shall correct the date of termination and redetermine the amount of the retroactive award consistent herein. We also reverse the equitable distribution of the parties' assets and liabilities because the trial court failed to make findings required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes....

...In any event, we must vacate the equitable distribution and remand for reconsideration in conjunction with the awards for alimony and attorney's fees because, on remand, the parties' financial resources may be altered. See Schiller, 625 So.2d at 862. We also direct the trial court's attention to section 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), which requires it to include "specific written findings of fact as to ......

...e is an insufficient basis for an unequal distribution of assets. The former husband, who would have shared in any profits, must share equally in the losses, notwithstanding that the former wife's investment conduct may well have been imprudent. See § 61.075(1)(i), Fla....

...ance with the requirements of rule 12.440(a). We note for purposes of the new final hearing that in the judgment we are reversing, the trial court failed to make findings in support of its equitable distribution of the parties' assets as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2007). Specifically, the trial court awarded the Wife sole ownership of the parties' three pieces of nonhomestead marital property without any explanation for the unequal distribution. See § 61.075(3)(d); Montalvo v....

...perty and sole substantial asset. On balance the court awarded the wife, who came to the marriage as a self-employed and financially independent professional, a $35,000 diamond ring, $16,000 in rehabilitative alimony, and $26,000 in attorney's fees. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), creates a presumption that individually-owned real property transferred to a tenancy by the entireties is marital property subject to equitable distribution, regardless of its original acquisition....

...n on divorce. Nevertheless, because the court's distribution of the marital assets, including the home, follows the statutory criteria and is supported by factual findings in the order based on competent and substantial evidence *1304 as required by section 61.075(3), it cannot be disturbed....

...r whether one party intentionally dissipated the marital assets or adversely affected the financial status of the other party. See Murray v. Murray, 636 So.2d 536, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see also Adams v. Adams, 677 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); § 61.075(1)(i), Fla....

...In several instances the court failed to properly distinguish between marital and premarital assets, and violated tenets set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976) and Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1983), and by the Florida Legislature in section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...riginal panel and Frank's counsel at oral argument) which repudiates the Florida Supreme Court case of Ball, a venture not yet undertaken by the Florida Supreme Court itself. The rationale employed by the anti- Ball argument is that the enactment of section 61.075(3)(a)5, which became effective on October 1, 1988, has nullified Ball and placed upon the claimant to a special equity in jointly titled property a two-fold burden of proof: (1) to demonstrate that the property was derived from a non-marital source and (2) to negate the intendment of gift to the other spouse....

...marital relationship. In these cases the property should be awarded to that spouse, as if the tenancy were created solely for survivorship purposes during coverture, in the absence of contradictory evidence that a gift was intended. The enactment of section 61.075(3)(a)5 is nothing more nor less than a simplified codification of the Ball doctrine itself....

...evidence that a gift was intended." Ball at 7. That contradictory evidence, of course, is the burden of the other spouse, who is relying on the nominal joint title in opposing the special equity. *337 Contrary to the anti- Ball argument, nothing in section 61.075(3)(a)5 purports to undo the "no gift" presumption involved in Ball....

...2d DCA 1990) (wherein the court followed the Ball formula in reversing a trial court that denied a special equity in the face of uncontradicted testimony that certain assets were traceable to a premarital source) and Miceli v. Miceli, 533 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (wherein the court stated that section 61.075 is "essentially" a codification of existing case law)....

...Hoffman, 552 So.2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), appeal dismissed, 558 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1990); Rouer v. Rouer, 548 So.2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); and Della-Giustina v. Della-Giustina, 546 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). None of these cases considered the 1988 enactment of section 61.075 to be a modification of the Ball doctrine....

...Initially, we observe that the trial court erred in characterizing the passive appreciation in market value of Straley's interest in non-marital real estate partnerships (601 and Harbor property) as a marital asset. See Wright v. Wright, 505 So.2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Section 61.075(3)(a)2 defines "marital assets and liabilities" as including "the enhancement in value and appreciation of non-marital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets......

...transfers *343 into joint names. Howard v. Howard, 467 So.2d 768, 770-772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Although not necessary to the original three-judge decision on this special equity issue, the original opinion noted that the plain and simple language of section 61.075(3)(a)(5), Florida Statutes (1989), may change the Ball presumption of gift vel non in special equity cases....

...likewise paid for the Harbor property partnership, over the term of the marriage. Mark argued that his Bush-Ross partnership predates his marriage to Stacy, and thus the income earned by his interest in the firm remained his sole property. He cited section 61.075(3)(b)3: All income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage unless the income was treated, used, or relied upon by the parties as a marital asset....

...The statute provides that "marital assets" includes: The enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both. (emphasis supplied) § 61.075(3)(a)2, Fla....

...This requires a trial judge to make a specific allocation in appropriate cases. Nor do we think the new statute changes the status of Florida's law on this point. No case specifically addresses it. However, the inference from opinions which predate the effective date of section 61.075, point to an allocation approach, rather than a threshold test....

...In the event Mark cannot meet his obligation to pay his apportioned share of Stacy's fees upfront from his resources, the trial court should consider a scheduled payment plan, at a fair interest rate. See Johns v. Johns, 423 So.2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 61.075(3)(a)5 states: (3) As used in this section: (a) "Marital assets and liabilities" include: * * * * * * 5....

...vices; and (8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to amount or rate, then whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation. [1] Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1976). [2] § 61.075, Fla....

...3d DCA 1989) (decided by appellate court September 1989; a P.C.A. merely citing Ball and Canakaris ). [4] Mann v. Mann, 578 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Wolfson v. Cary, 488 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Rabben v. Rabben, 468 So.2d 500, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). [5] § 61.075(3)(a)3, Fla....

...1980). [7] Warner v. Sony Corp. of America, 560 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 558 So.2d 93, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 139 (Fla. 1990); Hutchinson v. Miller, 548 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). [8] § 61.075(3)(b), Fla....

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. July 23, 1997. Frank Joseph Heston and Jason E. Slatkin of Heston & Slatkin, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellant. Christopher James Keith of Gustafson, Tilton, Henning & Metzger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Contrary to section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1995), the final judgment in this case did not list the marital assets to be distributed, failed to include an "individual valuation of significant assets," and neglected to identify the assets awarded to the husb...

...personal property taken by the wife prior to the final hearing on *510 dissolution. However, no one presented any evidence of the value of the challenged items. While the trial court should have determined whether these were marital nor non-marital, section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), only requires the valuation of "significant assets." When the parties fail to present evidence as to the value of an asset, the trial court may presume that the asset is not of significant value, and there is no error in failing to include it in the equitable distribution scheme....

...Therefore, any error in failing to identify the assets here is harmless. The trial court erred, however, in finding that the wife had special equity in the marital home where the wife presented no evidence to rebut the presumption that she had intended the funds to be a gift. See § 61.075(5)(a)5, Fla....

...(1993); Ray v. Ray, 624 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In addition, the trial court erred in valuing the husband's pension without providing a reason for its use of a valuation date other than the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...al contributions; instead, the trial court should have considered the husband's contribution in fashioning the equitable distribution. Under the equitable distribution statute, the court must categorize the parties' assets as nonmarital and marital. § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1991); Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1991). The Key Largo lot, purchased by the wife prior to the marriage, is properly categorized as nonmarital property. § 61.075(5)(b)1., Fla....

...See Straley v. Frank, 612 So.2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 624 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1993). On remand, the trial court is directed to consider the Key Largo lot as nonmarital property, and, barring a finding that the husband's contribution was a gift, § 61.075(5)(b)2., Fla....

...Next, we address the trial court's error in awarding the husband a special equity in the parties' jointly-owned North Carolina property. The parties purchased the property during the marriage. The husband's special equity claim rests on his assertion that his mother gave him $10,000 of the $13,000 down payment. Section 61.075(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes, states that marital assets include "[a]ssets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either party or jointly by them." The husband testified that his mother gave him a $10,000 check to cover a portion of the down payment....

...y the wife and her mother, was a marital asset. The house was purchased by the wife's mother; the mother later transferred the title to her name and the wife's name. The record demonstrates that this transfer does not rise above the level of a gift. Section 61.075(5)(b)2....

...es' properties during the period between separation and dissolution of marriage. We remand for further consideration of this award. The appropriate framework for determining the allocation of payments made during the period of separation is found in section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), the equitable distribution statute....

...any portion of them. The assets, a deferred compensation plan valued at $7,744 and Texaco stock valued at $1,074, should have been listed as marital assets and awarded in some equitable manner to the parties or an explanation made of their omission. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...any portion of them. The assets, a deferred compensation plan valued at $7,744 and Texaco stock valued at $1,074, should have been listed as marital assets and awarded in some equitable manner to the parties or an explanation made of their omission. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...the wife. We find that two require reversal. First, the trial court erred in "equitably distributing" assets acquired after filing of the petition for dissolution. The husband contends, and we agree, that this approach by the trial court contravenes section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.) which provides: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest date the parties entered into a valid separation...

...Thus, in the end, the husband received $84,503 and the wife $54,750 — a discrepancy of some $29,753. We agree with the wife that the unequal distribution of the marital assets must be reversed absent any findings referencing factors in Florida Statutes section 61.075 (2006), and explaining reasons for the unequal distribution....

couple’s marital assets and liabilities under section 61.075, Florida Statutes. After the husband continually

equitable distribution of the marital estate under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2018), but that option is

...Although the business is a nonmarital asset, any enhancement in value and appreciation of the business which resulted from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereof of marital funds or other forms of marital assets or both, became a marital asset. § 61.075(5)(a)(2), Fla....

...resulted in an unintended inequitable distribution. She explains that she was awarded marital assets encumbered by liabilities incurred by the husband after the date of filing the petition, which decreased her marital equity by a substantial amount. Section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes, states, in pertinent part: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separa...

maintain the home over an extended period." See § 61.075(h), Fla. Stat. (2017) (stating that it must be

...The wife did *347 not know whether the husband lost or won money playing the game, although she believed that when he held frequent games at their home, he won considerable amounts. What the marital assets are and what their worth is, is somewhat difficult to decipher because the trial court did not comply with section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1993), which requires the trial court to make written findings identifying all of the assets as marital or non-marital....

...would consist of a situation where one spouse used marital assets for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage was undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. Id. at 823. This concept was adopted in section 61.075 in 1993, when the Legislature added the following as a factor for the court to consider in distributing the assets of the marriage: The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition. § 61.075(1)(i), Fla....

...In fact, the wife testified that the husband made $1,000 per week at games held in their home. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding a greater share of the assets remaining because of the alleged "squandering" of assets during the marriage. On remand, the trial court should follow the dictates of section 61.075 in listing the marital (and non-marital) assets and liabilities in fashioning a new final judgment....

passive appreciation is a marital asset under section 61.075(5)(a)(2). This step must include findings of

...She also testified the husband had agreed to return this sum to her. However, the husband testified the $35,000 transfer to him was in repayment of a loan he had made to her. The court found that the wife did not prove a special equity in the marital residence. § 61.075(5), Fla....

...The court determined that the equity in the marital residence was $64,700 and awarded the wife approximately one-half of that amount: $16,000 (withdrawn joint funds) and $14,250 (furniture evaluation), totaling $30,250. It awarded the marital residence to the husband, pursuant to § 61.075(1)(i), and (j), [2] expressly finding that to require the husband to sell his only home and split the funds with the wife would be "patently inequitable." It appears that the court miscalculated the marital estate by limiting it to $64,700, the equity in the marital residence....

...NOTES [1] The former husband, Robert Schriefer, has not appeared in this appeal. [2] These sections permit an unequal distribution upon intentional dissipation, waste, depletion or destruction of marital assets after the petition is filed or within two years prior to filing the petition, section 61.075(1)(i); and any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties, section 61.075(1)(j). Although the trial court found a lack of candor on the part of the wife, it did not base its distribution scheme on this factor, as it is not one of the justifications for an unequal distribution in section 61.075(1). See also Ruiz v. Ruiz, 821 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). [3] § 61.075(1), Fla....

...[1] We do not decide whether the trial court erred in awarding all major assets to Former Wife; however, we reverse and remand the distribution to the trial court because of its failure to make written findings of the value of the various assets distributed. See § 61.075(3)(b) (in a contested dissolution proceeding, the distribution of all marital assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include, among other things, specific written findings of the identification of marital assets, including individual valuation of significant assets)....

...Further, we agree that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in determining that the appreciation in value of the parties' marital home, titled solely in the husband's name, was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution and that this asset had the value of $20,000. § 61.075(3)(a)2., Fla....

...Upon remand, the trial court shall identify the marital assets and non-marital assets. The enhancement in value and appreciation of non-marital assets resulting from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution or expenditure of marital funds constitute marital assets of the parties. Section 61.075(3)(a)2.; Crapps v....

...ity between the parties. As the remedies available to the trial court are interrelated, the trial court may revisit all the awards if necessary to achieve equity, including the award to the husband of a valuable membership in a local yacht club. See § 61.075(3)(a), Fla....

...e world as the general manager of the Dolphins. While he may not have made the command decisions, the testimony indicates that he carried through with the details... . Certainly, his efforts contributed to the franchise and thus its overall success. Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1993), should not be construed so narrowly as to *70 preclude an interest in a closely held family corporation from being considered a marital asset, where the spouse is employed full-time in its endeavors but is not the key decision-maker....

...band when her nonmarital funds were commingled in accounts with marital funds), review denied, 663 So.2d 631 (Fla.1995). We hold that the $50,000 certificate of deposit, funded entirely by the wife's inheritances, is the wife's nonmarital asset. See § 61.075(5)(b)2., Fla....

...ing couple expressly states that in "a proceeding for dissolution of marriage," the trial court must set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities and then distribute the marital assets and liabilities between the parties. § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). As explained in Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So.2d 491 (Fla.1991): Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), created a statutory form of equitable distribution....

...However, the court is directed to distribute the marital assets and liabilities "in such proportions *831 as are equitable" after considering various enumerated factors as well as any other factors "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." § 61.075(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). Robertson, 593 So.2d at 493-94. This means that it is no longer necessary to seek partition as part of a dissolution action to divide or distribute a parcel of property owned by a husband and a wife. In fact, section 61.075(4), expressly provides that a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which distributes assets "shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release, or acquisition." § 61.075(4), Fla....

...rney's fees under Chapter 64 governing partitions, must be reversed. On remand, the court below shall determine whether the Tamarac home and the debts incurred relating to that home are marital or non-marital and shall distribute same as required by section 61.075. [1] The court below shall also determine whether an attorney's fee award is appropriate "after consideration of the financial resources of both parties," and detail same in a final judgment which complies with the dictates of section 61.075(3). See § 61.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2005) (governing fee awards in Chapter 61 proceedings); § 61.075(3)(a)-(d), Fla....

...NOTES [1] As part of this determination, the court below should treat Riley's claim for imposition of a constructive trust as a special equity claim to have the property declared non-marital. See Robertson, 593 So.2d at 493-94 (confirming that what is now section 61.075(5)(a) creates a presumption that real estate owned by a husband and wife is marital property regardless of who paid for it and that a party claiming a special equity and seeking to have such property declared non-marital has the burden...

...As to Husband's argument regarding the denial of partition and sale of the couple's real property, we additionally note that Husband relies on cases whose holdings are outdated since the amendment of the statute governing equitable distribution. See, e.g., § 61.075, Fla....

...The former husband challenges a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He raises three issues on appeal, two of which we determine to have merit. We first find that there was insufficient evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that real estate held as tenants by the entireties constitutes a marital asset. § 61.075(5)(a)5; Robertson v....

...The principle of law to be followed in this district was succinctly stated in Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991): The legislature directs courts in dissolution proceedings to consider certain factors and "distribute between the parties marital assets and liabilities in such proportions as are equitable." § 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Hamilton, 520 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla.1988) (rejecting the notion that "there is a moment in time in which a judgment lien ... held against one of the tenants attaches to the entireties property upon dissolution when sole title to the property is awarded to one spouse in settlement of divorce by a final decree of dissolution"). Section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that a "judgment distributing assets shall have the effect of a duly executed instrument of conveyance." But the judgment dissolving William and Judy Pegram's marriage did not distribute assets....

...real estate on dissolution. Cf. Sharp, 520 *1266 So.2d at 10; see Hadden v. Cirelli, 675 So.2d 1003, 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (noting that judgment "directing" husband to convey real property to wife did not "distribute assets" as contemplated under section 61.075)....

unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.” § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). To justify unequal distribution

...lready accounted for in this final judgment. "The proper method of equitably dividing assets and liabilities in a dissolution of marriage case is regulated in detail by statute." Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In part, section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2007) provides that "[t]he distribution of all marital assets ....

...The court stated that it was "unable to determine an exact monetary sum, based on the evidence" of the Husband's marital enhancements to the property, so it accepted counsel's argument that the Husband was entitled to a twenty-five percent interest in the property. Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2001), includes in the definition of "marital assets" "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ....

...tribution and award of permanent periodic alimony. See Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1985). The trial court justified its distribution of marital assets and liabilities with factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...The judge offered the former wife's counsel a recess to reevaluate their strategy but counsel assured the judge that he was prepared to go forward. The former wife adduced no evidence to support a claim of her special equity in the marital home. The burden to show a special equity is upon the party claiming it. § 61.075(5)(a), Fla.Stat....

...THOMPSON, J. Veronica Reddell ("former wife") appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to list in its final judgment any valuations for the marital assets and liabilities. We agree. Section 61.075(3) states in part that the final judgment shall make a clear identification of marital and non marital assets, an individual valuation of significant assets, and a designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset....

...5th DCA 2002). In the instant case, in the final judgment, no valuation was provided for the marital liabilities or assets. See Spitulski, 816 So.2d at 1251 (reversing and remanding where the trial court was obliged to make written findings as required by section 61.075(3), but failed to make valuations of the marital assets)....

...The court also found that the bulk of the parties' assets were in retirement plans, and residences. The trial court determined that the remaining marital asset—Donald's profit sharing plan—should include accumulations to the account after the parties separated. Pursuant to section 61.075(6), [1] the cut off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets is the earliest of the date the parties entered into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of the petition....

...Thus it selected the date of filing. The parties' acts and the evidence presented at best established only a partial settlement as to some of the marital *1123 assets, at some earlier date, but it did not specifically include the profit sharing plan. [2] Further, section 61.075(5)(b) sets out substantive requirements for a judge to follow in determining whether an asset is nonmarital, and thus the sole property of one spouse. With regard to separation agreements which exclude assets as nonmarital, they must be pursuant to a valid written agreement between the parties under section 61.075(5)(b)4. [3] That requirement has not been met in this case. In addition, a cut off date prior to 1998, when the petition was filed, to determine marital assets would be inappropriate in this case because section 61.075(6) necessarily assumes that the date of the separation agreement must be established at trial....

...The trial court's determination that 1998 should be the cut off date grew out of its finding that there was no valid separation agreement encompassing this asset. That "fact finding" was supported by competent evidence. The dissent opines that under section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes, the test for determining the date to identify marital assets for purposes of equitable distribution is when the spouses agreed or intended to withdraw from the marital relationship....

...Had the parties truly decided to permanently separate and cease their marital relationship, they could have instituted divorce proceedings or otherwise formalized their separation. Failing to do so, both parties ran the risk that at some future date a trial judge, in exercising his discretion under section 61.075(6), would distribute any subsequently acquired assets in a manner not to their liking....

...an interest in the husband's pension plan after the date of separation as though she remained a participating partner in the marital relationship. The majority says yes. I disagree. *1124 The issue must be resolved, I believe, by the application of section 61.075(6), Fla. Stat., and common sense. Section 61.075(6) incorporates two provisions: one involves judicial discretion, the other does not....

...lue of such residences since the date of separation would continue to be marital assets. So also would be any pension plan acquired by the wife after separation. *1125 This was not the intent of the parties by their agreement nor is it sanctioned by section 61.075(6). The trial court's error stems, I believe, from its misconception that to be legal, an oral separation agreement must be read into the record. There is no such requirement in section 61.075(6)....

...te and apart since that date. There is also no question that in 1992 the parties divided marital assets, pursuant to said separation agreement. Of the $424,000 in assets (exclusive of the pension plan at issue herein) the wife received $219,000. The section 61.075(6) test is not when the claiming spouse agreed concerning a particular asset; it is when he or she agreed to withdraw from the marital partnership....

...The parties did not, at the time of their agreement to separate in 1992, agree on what portion of the husband's pension plan would go to the wife. This is because the plan was still fluid. Even so, the parties' interest in that plan should be determined as of 1992, if for no other reason than because section 61.075(6) requires it....

...Boyett, 703 So.2d 451 (Fla.1997), relative to the post-dissolution rights of a divorcing spouse to the increases in the pension plan of the other spouse earned after the date of dissolution. There is no reason that policy should not be applicable here. NOTES [1] Section 61.075(6) provides: (6) The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date...

after the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2003), states in pertinent

...In addition, the trial court did not identify all the parties' significant assets *312 and liabilities as marital or nonmarital. Some of the assets were not included in the final judgment. Finally, the court awarded alimony to the former wife, Rosa Lee Carr, without making findings of fact. This too was error. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1997), requires the trial court to make certain specific findings of fact....

...4th DCA 1995). In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the court identified only the parties' home and some tools and guns as marital assets. None of the liabilities were identified as marital or nonmarital. The trial court is required by section 61.075(3) to identify assets and liabilities as marital or nonmarital....

...Lumina. The transcript of the hearing also indicates that the wife has a life insurance policy with a cash surrender value of $5,000. This asset was not mentioned in the final judgment. Upon remand, the trial court should follow the requirements of section 61.075 by making specific findings, identifying all of the assets and liabilities, and assigning individual valuation to all significant assets....

...This division constitutes an award of approximately 64% to the appellee and 36% to the appellant. Although the starting point in distribution is an approximately equal division of marital assets, under certain circumstances an unequal division of assets may be warranted. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989), specifies the factors a court may consider in making such an unequal distribution of assets....

...did not tie his conviction and sentence to any depletion of marital assets or visitation of liability upon the appellee. Although the appellee urges us to consider this circumstance a factor "necessary to do equity and justice between the parties," section 61.075(1)(j), such an interpretation and application of the statute would be directly contrary to the rule prohibiting unequal distribution of marital assets, or an award or increase in alimony, based upon misconduct, except to the extent that the misconduct results in the dissipation of marital assets....

...The scheme of distribution of assets in the instant case is fair and equitable under the circumstances. Extraordinary factors exist which would allow the trial court to grant a disparate percentage of the marital assets to the wife "in order to do equity and justice between the parties." See § 61.075(1)(j), Fla....

...Spillert, 603 So.2d 700 (1992). A trial judge may, however, make an unequal division if the court makes findings of facts which support its conclusions. Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The factors which may justify an unequal distribution are enumerated in section 61.075(1)(a)-(j), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...In pertinent part, the factors which may be considered are the following: (b) the economic circumstances of the parties. ... . (g) the contribution of each spouse ... to the incurring of liabilities ... ... . (j) any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties. § 61.075, Fla....

...Her only means of support is rental income from the property acquired during the marriage. Consideration of these factors is nothing more than recognition of the economic circumstances of the parties, a factor which the Legislature said must be considered by the trial judge. § 61.075(1)(b), Fla....

...She simply suggests that having sole title until 2002 gives her the right to a "special equity." We disagree and reverse. Equitable distribution of a marital asset should be equal, unless legally sufficient justification for an unequal distribution is given based on the relevant statutory factors. § 61.075(1), Fla....

...ept as the equivalent of a final judgment. As if to prove the wisdom of our view of this issue, the eventual disposition of the child support issue altered the previously-ordered equitable distribution by almost $8,000. [2] In the 2008 amendments to section 61.075, a "special equity" was abolished in favor of the concept of "unequal distribution of a marital asset." In Re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, 987 So.2d 65 (Fla.2008).

...g all reasonable and customary costs of sale, and after satisfying the $400,000.00 promissory note in favor of the August B. Juliano Family Trust, dated March 19, 2002, the remaining proceeds shall be equally divided between the parties. Pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2007), a trial court has the authority to identify all marital liabilities and designate which spouse shall be responsible for each liability....

...Husband's CPA testified that Husband did not expend any marital money on the 1031 reverse exchange and purchase of the "1380 property." The "1380 property" value increased. The improvements were made by the IRGP, Inc., and no marital money was used for these improvements. Section 61.075(5)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that non-marital assets include assets acquired prior to marriage and "assets acquired ......

...or that resulted in the increased value. An "enhancement in value of a non-marital asset due to marital labor or effort *936 is a material asset subject to equitable distribution." Eager v. Eager, 696 So.2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing e.g. § 61.075(5)(a)(2))....

...review. Hollister v. Hollister, 965 So.2d 341, 343-44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The unvested options and restricted shares were, in part, the product of marital labor. Consequently, the marital portion was properly deemed to be a marital asset pursuant to section 61.075(6)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2009), which defines "marital assets" to include assets acquired during the marriage....

...[2] On remand, these calculations must be corrected. We also agree that the trial court erred in failing to treat the 221 shares of Disney stock, which the former wife sold on May 9, 2006, netting $6,481.58, as a martial asset subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(6)(a), Fla....

distributing marital assets. The applicable law, section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, describes nine enumerated

...2d DCA 2008). In order for this court to find that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine that the record on appeal does not demonstrate competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court's valuation of marital assets. See § 61.075(3), Fla....

...r. Arnold *393 was working there when the parties married on February 22, 1990, and continued to work for the City as long as the marriage lasted. After he filed the petition for dissolution, he enrolled in the DROP program on or about May 27, 2002. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that, "in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an un...

...ibution." Marital assets are defined by statute to include "[a]ll vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans and programs." § 61.075(5)(a)(4.), Fla....

...For purposes of equitable distribution, each spouse has an interest in all retirement, annuity and deferred compensation benefits, including DROP accounts—or portions thereof—to which either spouse earns the right during the marriage. Such benefits are marital assets under section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...Florida law requires that the cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities "is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage." § 61.075(6), Fla....

...Langevin, 698 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding where a trial court had purported to equitably distribute stock option plan shares acquired between the date of filing the petition and the date of the final judgment). The same statute, section 61.075(6), allows the trial court discretion to value assets as of different dates, but does not allow such discretion with regard to determining assets and liabilities....

distribution of the parties remaining assets. See § 61.075(5)(b), Fla. Stat. Appellant asserts that Appellee’s

Reversal is also required on the valuation issue. Section 61.075 of the Florida Statutes provides that in any

...ommercial Distribution Finance Corporation because it is inconsistent with section 61.077, Florida Statutes (2008). We further hold that assigning the wife the business liabilities incurred by the husband's primary business is also inconsistent with section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...The Second District Court of Appeal held in Yates v. Yates, 577 So.2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), that when "determining the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities, an element to be considered is the contribution of each spouse to the incurring of liabilities." Id. at 720. See also § 61.075(1)(g), Fla....

...In sum, the trial court exceeded its discretion in determining setoffs or credits upon the sale of the Lugo property and *859 directing the proceeds of that sale to the former husband and GE. In addition, the assignment to the wife of the business liabilities FYI incurred is inconsistent with section 61.075....

enhancement of value to the premarital business. Section 61.075(6)(a)l.b., Florida Statutes (2016), states

...THE CIRCUIT COURT'S RULING The trial court made the following findings of fact concerning the Riverview property: H. [The Riverview property] was purchased by the Husband prior to the *758 marriage, continues to be titled in the Husband's name alone, and is, therefore, the Husband's non-marital property pursuant to Section 61.075(5)(b)[,] Florida Statutes....

...expert... by $14,400.00. J. The enhancement of the home as described in Section I hereof, totaling $36,679, was made through the use of marital funds or efforts or both, and is therefore a marital asset subject to equitable distribution pursuant to Section 61.075(5)(a)[,] Florida Statutes....

...t's decision in Mitchell. Marital funds enhanced the value of the property by paying down the principal balance of the mortgage and by increasing the size of the residence. These enhancements are marital assets subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(5)(a)(2), Fla....

...ge. If, for example, one party brings to the marriage an asset in which he or she has an equity of fifty percent, the other half of which is financed by marital funds, half the appreciated value at the time of the petition for dissolution was filed, § 61.075(5)(a)[(]2[)], Fla....

...uity in a Florida condominium as well as all of its furnishings, which apparently was the couple's only marital property. The judgment, however, contains no factual findings in support of this special equity award to the former wife as prescribed by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...In the absence of such findings, we are unable to engage in any meaningful appellate review of this division of property and must accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue. See Keaton v. Keaton, *193 634 So.2d 798, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (failure to adhere to dictates of section 61.075(3) is reversible error); Collinsworth v....

...issue of alimony). Classification of Involuntary Military Separation Payments The Florida statute governing equitable distribution of property requires the trial court to "set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities...." § 61.075(1), Fla....

...ividing marital property). In his third issue, the appellant contends that a lump-sum payment received by the former wife upon her involuntary discharge from the United States Navy constitutes "marital assets" subject to equitable distribution under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...The trial court gave the former husband full ownership rights in two businesses in exchange for any special equity he might assert in the marital residence. The businesses are not valued in the final judgment, however. The trial court was obliged to make written findings as required by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, but failed to make valuations of the marital assets....

...Finally, the trial court erred by awarding the Wife the temporary exclusive use and occupancy of the home and requiring each party to pay approximately $750 per month toward the mortgage without evidence to support a finding that these provisions were financially feasible for the parties. See § 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

...First, we reverse the award of assets so that the trial court may enter a more detailed order and may reconsider the award of part of the wife's disability payments to the husband. The trial court erred in failing to list the parties' marital assets as well as the values of those assets in accordance with section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Additionally, we agree with the former wife that, as a matter of law, the trial court erred by not determining that the home mortgages are marital liabilities and by failing to determine who would be responsible for paying each liability. Pursuant to section 61.075(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), the trial court is required to determine whether a debt is marital, and if it is, to apportion the marital liability....

...On remand, this issue should be revisited, and the trial court should also determine the value of all three of the couple's Atlantic Coast Federal Credit Union accounts and of both of the couple's vehicles and any related liabilities, as of the date Ms. Bogin filed her petition for dissolution, August 7, 1998. See § 61.075(6), Fla.Stat....

...Const. In order to resolve the conflict between these cases, this Court must determine whether and under what circumstances the passive appreciation of a marital home that is deemed nonmarital real property is subject to equitable distribution under section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...operty, but is encumbered by a mortgage that marital funds service, is the value of the passive, market-driven appreciation of the property that accrues during the course of the marriage deemed a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...Because this is a pure question of law, our standard of review is de novo. See D'Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla.2003) (stating that the standard of review for pure questions of law is de novo). As we explain below, we answer this question in the affirmative. First, we discuss the applicable statute, section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007). Second, we discuss Stevens and Kaaa, respectively. Third, we discuss the proper method for calculating and allocating an award of passive appreciation. *870 Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007) [2] The dissolution of a marriage in Florida is governed by chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes. Particularly relevant to our analysis is section 61.075, which addresses the "[e]quitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities." This section expressly provides what constitutes both "marital assets and liabilities" and "nonmarital assets and liabilities." Moreover, the statute provides that "in distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, [absent a justification for an unequal distribution,] the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal." § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). The statutory definition of "marital assets and liabilities" contained in section 61.075(5)(a)(2) provides in relevant part: 61.075 Equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities.— ....

...a marital asset where marital funds or the efforts of either party contributed to the appreciation. Such findings are to be made by the trial court based on evidence presented by the parties. Although the district courts in Stevens and Kaaa applied section 61.075(5)(a)(2) in their analyses, they arrived at different conclusions about whether the passive appreciation of the respective marital homes constituted a marital asset....

...First, the court must determine the overall current fair market value of the home. Second, the court must determine whether there has been a passive appreciation in the home's value. Third, the court must determine whether the passive appreciation is a marital asset under section 61.075(5)(a)(2)....

...ge. If, for example, one party brings to the marriage an asset in which he or she has an equity of fifty percent, the other half of which is financed by marital funds, half the appreciated value at the time of the petition for dissolution was filed, § 61.075(5)(a) 2, Fla....

...In sum, when a marital home constitutes nonmarital real property, but is encumbered by a mortgage that marital funds service, the value of the passive, market-driven appreciation of the property that accrues during the course of the marriage *873 is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...NOTES [1] There is a conflict in the evidence regarding whether Katherine Kaaa contributed $500 toward the down payment, or whether Joseph Kaaa paid the entire $2000. While this issue may be relevant on remand to the trial court, it does not affect our analysis of the question of law before this Court. [2] In 2008, section 61.075, Florida Statutes, was amended to include a new subsection (5). What was section 61.075(5)(a)(2) in 2007 is now section 61.075(6)(a)(1)(b)....

...This was error because Matrix, under the circumstances of this case, is a nonmarital asset. Nonmarital assets are defined as "[a]ssets acquired and liabilities incurred by either party prior to the marriage, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities." § 61.075(6)(b)(1), Fla....

...Orloff's retained 20% of Matrix stock remained his nonmarital property because it was an asset acquired prior to the marriage. But the trial court correctly categorized the 20% conveyed to Mrs. Orloff as a marital asset because, pursuant to statute, it was conveyed to her during the marriage. See § 61.075(6)(a)(1)(a) (defining marital assets to include "[a]ssets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage")....

...Orloff held no share in the *275 OFLP. The trial court erroneously included the value of Mr. Orloff's stake in the OFLP as a marital asset in the equitable distribution schedule. It is a nonmarital asset because it was acquired prior to the marriage. See § 61.075(6)(b)(1)....

...However, any enhancement in value of Matrix since the date the parties married is properly considered a marital asset if during the marriage such enhancement was due to Mr. Orloff's or Mrs. Orloff's contribution of marital labor or marital funds. See § 61.075(6)(a)(1)(b); see also Conlan, 43 So.3d at 935-36; Eager v....

...The wife alleges that as of 1979 or 1980, the parties resided in separate countries, but were not separated, and the marriage continued. In seeking the temporary relief, the wife presented evidence as to the complexity of the alleged $90,000,000 marital estate. Pertinent to this case is section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1999), which provides in part: The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid se...

...d be dramatically reduced. Therefore, the trial court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the parties had a valid separation agreement and, if so, the date of the agreed separation. Once the cut-off date is determined pursuant to section 61.075(6), the trial court will then be in a better position to predict the scope of discovery and the time needed for litigating this case....

...We affirm, in all other respects, the final judgment granting dissolution, and the order that the husband pay the fees of the wife's counsel. We address three points raised in these appeals and cross-appeals. First, the trial court erred in awarding the wife the piano the husband had inherited from his father. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1991) provides, "In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ... the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities and shall distribute between the parties the marital assets and liabilities... ." In section 61.075(5)(b)2., Florida Statutes (1991) "nonmarital assets" are defined as those assets "acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for such assets." The piano valued at $5,000, belonged to the husband's family for the last 40-some years....

marital labor constitutes a marital asset under section 61.075(6)(a)(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), which

...and the record indicates his medical expenses are largely covered by insurance. In reconsidering the equitable distribution plan, the trial court should reconsider its decision on this marital liability and make adequate findings in accordance with section 61.075, including identification and valuation, to ensure equitable distribution of all marital assets and liabilities....

...ayments (exclusive of principal reduction) required by the wife in respect to the home will be off-set by the value of her exclusive occupancy of the home during the period. We believe such express findings and valuation requirements are mandated by section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, which was enacted effective July 1, 1991....

...Even if the trial court thought it awarded the bank accounts to the Husband, which it did not, the distribution of assets and debts is still dramatically unequal and section I(E) of the judgment has no explanation of the basis for an unequal distribution. See Guida v. Guida, 870 So.2d 222, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); § 61.075(3)(b), Fla....

trial court erred in this regard. 1 Section 61.075(1) provides that “the court shall set apart

and does not comply with the requirements of section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2017), because it does

...). Mr. Matti also complains that the trial court erred in failing to consider evidence of Mr. Remington's involvement in certain transactions as being relevant to Mrs. Matti's dissipation of marital assets in this case. We, again, agree. Pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1991), a court may consider "any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties" in making an equitable distribution of marital property....

...On June 4, 2001, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff counters that Debtor held an interest in the non-entireties property by virtue of its status as marital property to be equitably distributed pursuant to Florida Statutes § 61.075....

...rposes? A court overseeing a Florida marriage dissolution proceeding is obligated to operate under the premise that marital properties and liabilities should be distributed equally absent some justification for an unequal distribution. See FLA.STAT. § 61.075 (2001)....

findings regarding the factors enumerated in section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2016). We also reverse

...The trial court treated the $1.9 million as nonmarital funds, and the assets purchased with those funds as nonmarital assets. In so doing, the trial court erred. Marital assets include assets acquired "during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them ..." § 61.075(5)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). Such assets are presumed to be marital; the presumption is overcome only upon a showing of a special equity. § 61.075(7), Fla....

...ar and convincing evidence to the contrary. We agree. Initially, the trial court's reliance on Crouch and Grieco is misplaced. Both Grieco and Crouch were decisions which addressed the issue of whether certain assets were marital or nonmarital under section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...sums of money. The trial court correctly found that the domain name and the website business were the nonmarital property of the Former Husband because the domain name had been registered and website development had begun prior to the marriage. See § 61.075(6)(b)1.b., Fla....

...However, it was the Former Husband's efforts during the marriage that enhanced the value of the website business. As a result, the Former Wife is entitled to have the enhanced value of the business considered as part of the equitable distribution. See § 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Fla....

...mer wife before the marriage. There are no findings of fact to support such a division of the parties' assets and liabilities; and neither the record nor the statement of the evidence contains anything to suggest that such a division is appropriate. Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), which governs the distribution of assets and liabilities, requires that the parties' nonmarital assets and liabilities be set apart; and that, absent unusual circumstances, the marital assets and liabilities be distributed equally....

...fact, as required by section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1993). The trial court shall also set aside the nonmarital assets and liabilities of the parties; and then revisit its plan for distribution of the marital assets and liabilities, pursuant to section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), making the findings of fact mandated by section 61.075(3)....

6 While section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, instructs the trial court

...There are other errors in this judgment. First, the court provided that the parties would receive "the property in [their] possession and control." The property was neither itemized nor valued nor is there any indication that the property is marital or separate. See § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat.; Esposito v....

the parties’ marital funds on the cottage. See § 61.075(6)(a)l.b., Fla. Stat. (2010) (“The enhancement

...Mistretta's verified amended motion for rehearing "(Count One) for a new trial," and ordering "a rehearing upon all issues." We reverse and remand. In the final judgment dissolving the Mistrettas' marriage, entered on August 25, 2008, the trial court used October 31, 2007, as the "date for determining value of assets," § 61.075(7), Fla....

...The former husband appeals, and the former wife cross-appeals. The former husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that his premarital home had enhanced in value by $100,000 and that such enhancement was a marital asset. We disagree. Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides, in pertinent part, that "Marital assets" include "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ......

...rital home until the youngest child reaches the age of majority. We agree. The trial court granted the former wife exclusive use and possession of the former husband's home under the section of the order dealing with equitable distribution. However, Section 61.075(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), defines "Nonmarital assets," in part, as "[a]ssets acquired ......

...[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of [a] non-marital asset[] resulting either [1] from the efforts of either party during the marriage or [2] from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both." § 61.075(5)(a)(2), Fla....

...Clearly, the wife is entitled, as we have held, to the enhancement in value of the marital home due to the mortgage reduction and improvements on the home paid for by the husband during the marriage with marital funds, but not to a passive appreciation of the home unrelated to these payments. Indeed, Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1991), expressly provides that a marital asset includes "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of [a] non-marital asset[] resulting ......

...testified at trial that the increase in the value of the marital home was due primarily to precisely such passive appreciation. As we have previously held in accord with established Florida law, such passive appreciation is not a marital asset under Section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...The trial court, however, found that the source of the $10,000 opening deposit was an account jointly-held by the parties. On remand, the trial court shall revisit its findings as to which of the parties' assets are properly designated as marital. See § 61.075(5)(b)2, Fla....

...The instant case was initiated on December 16, 1994, when the former wife filed another petition for dissolution. The trial court used December 16, 1994 as the date to determine marital assets and liabilities. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in determining the date on which to measure the marital estate. § 61.075(6), *276 Fla....

...s claim for a bicycle, and claims for attorney's fees and costs. There is no record evidence of joint expenses after the filing nor evidence that Husband and Wife jointly consumed the value of the business that existed on the date of the filing. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...Indeed, the Final Judgment made it clear that equitable distribution of the business had not occurred at the time of trial. The trial court erred in failing to equitably distribute to Wife her share of this asset. The trial court also erred by not following section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes, when considering Wife's claim that her student loans were a marital debt....

...Indeed, the trial court never reached the issue of equitable distribution, because the court failed to recognize the student loans as marital debt. Second, whether one party obtained the benefit of the marital debt does not determine the equitable distribution of the debt under section 61.075(1)....

...n abuse of discretion. We endorse the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction over visitation. We reverse the trial court's failure to award the husband the passive accumulations on his $12,055.81 premarital interest in his retirement fund. See subsection 61.075(3)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (1989); Wright v. Wright, 505 So.2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We also reverse the trial court's failure to set off the wife's interest in her own non-vested retirement account against her interest in the husband's retirement account. See sections 61.075(3)(a)(4) and 61.076(1), Florida Statutes (1989); Glover v....

...n a home owned by him prior to the marriage. The husband's lawyer expressly waived any claim for special equity in the home, and even if there was a valid claim for special equity, he presented no evidence to overcome the statutory presumption of subsection 61.075(3)(a)(5), Florida Statutes (1989), that entireties real estate is marital property regardless of who paid for it....

...isit the matter of child support should the child persist in refusing to maintain a meaningful relationship and participate in a program of reasonable visitation. KAHN, Judge, concurring. I agree that based upon the dictates of existing case law and section 61.075, Florida Statutes, the award of equitable distribution must be revisited....

...t the assets of a revocable trust or to have a constructive trust imposed. We must point out, however, that we are troubled by this result. This case involves a long term, intact marriage. We find it strange that a divorced spouse is entitled, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, to reach assets held in a revocable, inter vivos trust but a loving, devoted spouse is not....

remand, the court shall consider the factors of section 61.075 including the valuation of the pawn business

...Sayegh testified without contradiction that the parties had incurred the debt, and he presented copies of letters from the creditor seeking to collect the debt from him. The court should have determined whether the debt was marital or nonmarital and addressed it in the final judgment. See § 61.075, Fla....

...eciated value of the Husband's separately titled assets. We agree with the Wife that our decisions in Witowski v. Witowski, 758 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Doig v. Doig, 787 So.2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), are controlling. As noted in Witowski, section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2000), governs equitable distribution. Section 61.075(5)(b) provides that assets and liabilities excluded from marital assets and liabilities by a valid written agreement are nonmarital....

...To the extent the Wife can establish that these properties or the business were acquired in whole or in part with marital funds or labor, the marital properties and the enhanced value of the nonmarital *635 properties attributable to marital contributions are subject to equitable distribution. Section 61.075(5)(a)(2) provides that "[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds" is a marital asset....

...We reverse all remaining portions of the final judgment relative to equitable distribution and remand for a new trial. Our holding necessitates re-evaluation of the amount of alimony and attorney's fee determinations on remand. The trial court must begin with the statutory requirement of section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2007), that the assets and liabilities of the parties be classified as marital or nonmarital....

...the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. In order to do this, the trial court must determine "[t]he cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities.. . ." § 61.075(6)....

...uired to identify and value the significant marital assets and designate which spouse is entitled to each asset; similarly, the trial court is required to identify the marital liabilities and designate which spouse is responsible for each liability. § 61.075(3), Fla....

...Instead of saying, as the trial court here did, that each party shall stand responsible for half of any joint marital debt incurred during the marriage as of the date of the final judgment, the trial court on remand must follow the procedure outlined in Austin and Staton. Equally important is section 61.075(6)'s requirement that each significant marital asset be individually valued....

...ascribing a value to each identified marital asset or liability. For valuation of each marital asset or liability, the statute does not provide the bright line clarity it did for identifying marital versus nonmarital assets and liabilities. Instead, section 61.075(6) gives the trial court greater discretion in the valuation arena: The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances....

...court. Although the trial court listed the limited marital assets of the parties in the final judgment and awarded them all to the former husband, it failed to make any written findings in support of its inequitable distribution. In accordance with section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2001), if a court's distribution of the marital assets is disproportionate, then the court must make written findings in support of its distribution....

...of the parties was to be responsible for their $1500 IRS debt. The final judgment, however, specified that this was a "joint IRS debt." We construe this to mean that this is a debt for which both parties are liable and therefore find no error under section 61.075....

...In so doing, under the facts of this case, we believe that the trial court abused its discretion. An equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based upon certain factors. See § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). One such factor that the court should consider is the "economic circumstances of the parties." See id. § 61.075(1)(b)....

required findings). A. Equitable Distribution Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2011), requires a trial

marriage, shall be presumed to be a marital asset." § 61.075(6)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (2015). It was also undisputed

...The purchase price was substantially less. Although Mr. Gregson testified that he did not intend a gift with respect to Mrs. Gregson's having been listed as a title owner by the entirety, we affirm the trial court's order fixing her equal equity at *1267 $26,000. See § 61.075(3)(a)(5), Fla....

filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage.” § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2008). But “[t]he date for determining

warranted under the statutory factors listed in § 61.075(l)(a)-(j), Florida Statutes. See Watson v. Watson

premise that the distribution should be equal ....Ӥ 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). Although a trial court

...ial equity, to the extent it was for services performed prior to the marriage, should be capable of mathematical calculation. We cannot tell whether the value of the special equity was proved by husband because the record contains no transcript. See § 61.075(5)(a)5, Fla....

...stributing the land to the former husband and in determining child support. As to the land—which appears to be the only marital asset subject to equitable distribution—the court considered and made findings on each of the factors set forth in *406 section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2006), which permits unequal distribution of marital assets....

...1st DCA 2006) (trial court is required to make specific findings justifying disparity in asset distribution). While most factors were inapplicable, the court found that two factors justify awarding the former husband the land: the less-than-two-year duration of the marriage, see section 61.075(1)(c); and the fact that only the former husband contributed, through "sweat equity" and non-marital assets, to enhancing [4] the land, see section 61.075(1)(g)....

less-than-two-year duration of the marriage, see section 61.075(l)(c); and the fact that only the former husband

...out blame for the financial quagmire into which she had waded. Nevertheless, in determining the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities, an element to be considered is the contribution of each spouse to the incurring of liabilities. § 61.075(1)(g), Fla....

...income from one of the three rental properties. It omitted any mention of the fifth property and the rental income from the other two rental properties. The Wife argues that these omissions were error. On the record presented here, we agree in part. Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2003), requires the trial court to clearly identify and value all of the marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities and to determine entitlement to each marital asset and responsibility for each marital debt....

...1st DCA 1995); Glover v. Glover, 601 So.2d 231, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, when the parties fail to present evidence concerning the value of the assets and liabilities at issue, they effectively prevent the trial court from discharging its responsibilities under section 61.075(3)....

factual findings to support the allocation. See § 61.075, Fla. Stat. (2018). The remaining issues raised

...You should indicate to whom you believe the item(s) or debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use this column if *413 property/debt was owned/owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the "General Information for Self—Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A....

...You should indicate to whom you believe the item belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if property was owned by one spouse before the marriage. See the "General information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A B C ASSETS: DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) Current Fair Nonmarital DO NOT LIST ACCOUNT NUMBERS....

...You should indicate to whom you believe the debt belongs. (Typically, you will only use Column C if the debt was owed by one spouse before the marriage. See the "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms and section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, for definitions of "marital" and "nonmarital" assets and liabilities.) A B C LIABILITIES: DESCRIPTION OF ITEM(S) Current Nonmarital DO NOT LIST ACCOUNT NUMBERS....

" Id. (citing § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2013)). Under section 61.075, nonmarital assets

are presumed to be a marital debt. See generally § 61.075, Fla.' Stat. (2012). Thus, if the loans are treated

...AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur. KAHN, C.J., concurs and dissents with opinion. KAHN, C.J., concurring and dissenting. I concur with the court's decision that Mr. Kelly's accrued leave is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

distribution arises from section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2012). Section 61.075(5), in pertinent part

...The court also found that the former husband failed to overcome the presumption that a residence, purchased by him during the marriage, was a marital asset. However, despite this finding, the court awarded exclusive use and possession of the home to the former husband. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that the distribution of marital assets must be equal unless there is justification in the record supporting the court's disparate treatment. The final distribution of marital assets, whether equal or unequal, must be supported by factual findings based on substantial, competent evidence. Prest v. Tracy, 749 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Section 61.075(3) states in part that the final judgment must contain specific written findings of fact as to identification of nonmarital and marital assets, valuation of significant marital assets, designation of which spouse shall be entitled to e...

...out providing any valuation of this asset. Likewise, neither the record nor the final judgment reveals the court's rationale in allowing the former husband to pay the former wife's portion of the distribution award over time. We recognize that under section 61.075(10), a trial court has discretion to order an equitable distribution award payable in installments over a fixed period of time....

...3d DCA 2010); Puskar v. Puskar, 29 So. 3d 1201, 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). When the husband initially funded his accounts, the accounts were nonmarital assets because they were exclusively funded with the husband’s inheritance from his mother. See § 61.075(6)(b)2., Fla....

...Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the final judgment finding that the husband’s three accounts lost their character as nonmarital assets due to commingling.3 B. Alleged Enhancement in Value of Husband’s Accounts due to Husband’s Marital Efforts and Labor Section 61.075(6)(a)1.b., Florida Statutes (2014), provides that marital assets includes “[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting ....

...Siegel had told his accountant that the purpose of the account was to save for "their" future or retirement, for emergencies, and for expenses such as their daughters' weddings. We find no error in the trial court's conclusion regarding this asset. Section 61.075 governing distribution of property in dissolution actions expressly requires trial courts to determine whether assets are marital or non-marital and to segregate to each party his or her non-marital assets and then distribute the marital assets: (1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ....

...the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities, and in distributing the parties' marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal. . . . § 61.075(1), Fla....

...te the marital assets and liabilities); Green v. Green, 542 So.2d 466, 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (confirming that non-marital assets should not be placed in the "marital asset pot" for distribution). To facilitate the equitable distribution of assets, section 61.075 defines marital and non-marital assets and places within the definition of non-marital assets those assets "acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift." § 61.075(5)(b)(2), Fla....

this award, as required under Chapter 61. See § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2008); Lee v. Lee, 56 So.3d 819

...s as of the date of trial rather than as of an earlier date before the proceeds of accounts had been depleted by the appellee. The appealed judgment is silent on why the trial court used the trial date rather than the date of filing of the petition. Section 61.075(4), Florida Statutes (1989), provides: The date for determining marital assets and liabilities and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreem...

...r the circumstances and both the reason and the other date are stated in the final judgment. Bain v. Bain, 553 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In order that an appellate court may provide adequate review to assure compliance with the requirements of section 61.075(4), we hold that unless the circuit court distributing marital assets in a final judgment of dissolution specifically identifies a valuation date of these assets that is different from the date of filing of the petition and also recite...

contributions. Witowski, 758 So.2d at 1186 (citing. § 61.075, Fla. Stat.); Downey v. Downey, 843 So.2d 932

...out providing a factual basis to support the *717 award and that the circuit court erred in awarding the wife permanent alimony. We affirm the alimony award without discussion, but we reverse the equitable distribution portion of the final judgment. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2005), provides that, in distributing marital assets and liabilities, a court "must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors....

...des that it cannot comply with the statute without taking additional evidence. The remaining portions of the final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage are affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. STRINGER and KELLY, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] Section 61.075(1) lists several factors which could justify an unequal distribution of assets.

...the husband devoted his labor to the wife's separate property. The reasoning behind this award presumes to be that his labors saved the parties $150,000.00, in the costs of construction. We conclude that this award was contrary to the provisions of section 61.075(5)(a)(2), Florida Statutes (2001), which defines this as marital appreciation....

...Concluding that such future claims are "marital in nature," the trial court ordered that "all expenses related to any of these liabilities that are not covered by insurance are to be divided equally between the parties." The Former Husband contends that he cannot be held liable for these potential future claims. We agree. Section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), defines the term "marital liabilities" as those "liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them." The definition provides that the Former Wife's liability for...

...alf of repairs made to the home after separation. Given the distribution made by the trial court, we conclude that this award was an abuse of discretion as these were not marital liabilities, and the husband retained no interest in the property. See § 61.075(6), Fla....

...In the final judgment, the circuit court made findings regarding the equitable distribution of property and debts. This court reviews the circuit court's findings regarding equitable distribution for an abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2005), governs the distribution of marital assets and liabilities....

...A final judgment which fails to include the statutory requirements is difficult to review and requires reversal. Prest v. Tracy, 749 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). While a trial court has broad discretion to fashion an equitable distribution scheme, it must support its distribution with specific factual findings. See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...ties disagreed. Regrettably, the final judgment did not delineate the equitable distribution scheme to show what property the court found to be marital, what property it found to be nonmarital, and which party should receive each item as required by section 61.075(1)....

...his was a short-term marriage. However, the trial court did not address all of the appropriate factors required by the 2009 statute. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to create a proper equitable distribution scheme in accordance with section 61.075....

the equitable distribution statute, section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2013), and the fact

...purchased with the sale proceeds were valued separately. The court did not, however, include those assets in its distribution scheme. The result was a distribution plan that did not identify and distribute all the marital assets. This was error. See § 61.075(3)(a), Fla....

the marriage are marital assets pursuant to section 61.075(5)(a)4, Florida Statutes (2005). As such, they

automobile business was a marital asset. Section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes (2016), governs the equitable

Bode, 21 So.3d 867, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2008), directs trial

...I am not of the view, however, that the statute's limited extension of support only to those dependent high school students expected to graduate before the age of nineteen is an unconstitutional deprivation of due process or a denial of equal protection. NOTES [1] See, e.g., § 61.075, Fla....

...osit and it was the wife's burden to prove no gift was intended.) In the instant case, since the court found that the former wife failed to overcome the presumption that her contribution was a gift, and since a gift is designated marital property by section 61.075(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes, we cannot conclude that the trial judge erred when it *537 wrote, "The facts proven at trial have not sufficiently rebutted this presumption." The former wife contends that the trial court miscalculated with respect to her retirement funds....

establishing a value for the remaining furnishings. Section 61.075(3)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that a judgment

...ure sale pending, the building had no value. As the trial court gave the building a substantial value and awarded it to the husband, that skewed the entire equitable distribution plan unfairly in the wife's favor. The husband first argues that under section 61.075(6), Florida Statutes (1994), the trial court could choose different valuation dates for different assets....

without sufficient legal justification. We agree. Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2010), states, in pertinent

...VILLANTI, J., Concurs with opinion. VILLANTI, Judge. I fully concur in the decision to affirm the final judgment entered in this case but write to commend the trial court, whose final judgment is an outstanding example *598 of a meticulously-crafted analysis under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...Where the Final Judgment does not identify the property, nor its value, we cannot affirm the court's rational for the distribution. Accordingly, we reverse the calculation of the enhancement value and remand for further proceedings consistent with section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...r on Remand from District Court of Appeal. Should the court decide to distribute the enhanced value of these assets unequally between the parties, it shall state its reasons for doing so, and the record support for same, in the final order. [10] See § 61.075(1), Fla....

...d value of the former husband's premarital assets. On the record before us, we are unable to discern, and counsel for the former husband was at a loss to explain, how these percentages were derived and, thus, whether they comply with the mandates of section 61.075(1) of the Florida Statutes.

...(The parties may use Marital Settlement Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court *221 Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(1). ___ b. The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

...Agreement for Dissolution of Marriage with No Dependent or Minor Child(ren), Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(f)(2). ___ b. The Court should determine how the assets and liabilities of this marriage are to be distributed, under section 61.075, Florida Statutes....

trial court’s rationale for the distribution — ” § 61.075(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2012). Where certain findings

the expenses of the home prior to the sale. Section 61.075(1)0), Florida Statutes (2014), states that

individually by either spouse or jointly by them.” § 61.075(6)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). Marital assets also

account is to be equitably distributed under section 61.075, Florida Statutes (2009). A cover-ture fraction

an incorrect cut-off date. We agree. Section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes (2016), provides that

...Acker, 821 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review granted, 842 So.2d 842 (Fla.2003); Lauro v. Lauro, 757 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Compare McLean v. McLean, 652 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), with Rogers v. Rogers, 622 So.2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). [3] See § 61.075(1)(h), Fla....

and allocate them to the parties pursuant to section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2014), it cannot adjudicate

...On appeal, the Wife argues that the use of marital funds to pay down the mortgage on the Queens building—the Husband's nonmarital asset—renders the enhancement in the value of the property a marital asset that is subject to equitable distribution. See § 61.075(6)(a)(1)(b), Fla....