Opinion
No. 1D13–6027.
10-14-2014
Daniel Thomas McMULLEN, Husband, Appellant, v. Ann Rowe McMULLEN, Wife, Appellee.
Joseph R. Boyd, B.C.S., and James M. Durant, Jr., B.C.S., of Boyd & Durant, P.L., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Thomas J. Schulte, Jr. of Judkins, Simpson, High & Schulte, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Joseph R. Boyd, B.C.S., and James M. Durant, Jr., B.C.S., of Boyd & Durant, P.L., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Thomas J. Schulte, Jr. of Judkins, Simpson, High & Schulte, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
In this dissolution action, we agree with the former husband that the trial court erred in determining that $250,000 of the distribution he received from a non-marital joint venture and transferred into his checking account was subject to equitable distribution; competent substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that those funds were treated, used, or relied on by the parties as a marital asset. See § 61.075(6)(b) 3., Fla. Stat. (2011); Holden v. Holden, 667 So.2d 867, 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing equitable distribution of certificates of deposit purchased with proceeds from a non-marital asset because “[t]he record does not support a conclusion that the parties commingled these non-marital assets [the certificates of deposit] with marital assets”). However, as to the remainder of the equitable distribution award, we disagree with the former husband; competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that the former husband's marital efforts and contributions enhanced the value of the non-marital joint venture and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of the enhancement to which the former wife was entitled. See § 61.075(6)(a) 1.b., Fla Stat. (2011). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the equitable distribution award related to the $250,000 in the former husband's checking account, but we affirm the final judgment in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.