Other jurisdictions have ruled similarly. See, Rennert v. Rennert, 307 So.3d 1021 (Fla. App. 2020) (borrowing against husband's nonmarital real property to obtain new marital property did not cause property to lose its nonmarital status); Higgins v. Higgins, 226 So.3d 901 (Fla. App. 2017) (nonmarital property did not become marital property because it was used as security for marital line of credit); Bullock v. Bullock, 218 So.3d 265 (Miss. App. 2017) (use of nonmarital real property as collateral for loan to purchase marital home did not convert nonmarital property into marital property); In re Marriage of Corak, 412 P.3d 642 (Colo.App. 2014) (use of husband's separate real estate as collateral for line of credit did not turn it into marital property); Layman v. Layman, 62 Va.App. 134, 742 S.E.2d 890 (2013) (use of inherited real property to secure a loan did not transmute into marital property); Fashingbauer v. Fashingbauer, 19 So.3d 401 (Fla. App. 2009) (finding that husband's use of nonmarital property to obtain line of credit used to purchase marital property did not transform nonmarital property into marital property); Jones v. Jones, 904 So.2d 1143 (Miss. App. 2004) (

See, e.g., Higgins v. Higgins, 226 So.3d 901, 907 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) (wife's separate property did not become marital property because it was used as security for line of credit repaid with marital funds); Bullock v. Bullock, 218 So.3d 265, 271 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (parties' use of wife's nonmarital property as collateral for a loan to buy a marital home did not convert the nonmarital property into marital property); Giannuzzi v. Kearney, 74 N.Y.S.3d 123, 126 (N.Y.App.Div. 2018) (pledge of wife's inherited stock as collateral for a loan used to acquire several parcels of property did not transmute all or any portion of the stock)

Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Higgins v. Higgins, 226 So. 3d 901, 903–04 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); see also Gromet v. Jensen, 201 So. 3d 132, 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("A trial court’s determination that an asset is marital or nonmarital involves mixed questions of law and fact. Although we defer to the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.").

Higgins v. Higgins, 226 So.3d 901, 903-04 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

We agree with the Husband that the trial court's factual findings do not establish that Pinehurst was commingled with marital assets or otherwise lost its nonmarital character. In that regard, this case is more like Higgins v. Higgins, 226 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), than the Pfrengle decision that the trial court relied upon. In Higgins, the wife owned an interest in nonmarital real property from a prior marriage.

Consequently, at trial, the Former Wife failed to establish that the Former Husband's Miami Property had been "transformed" to a marital asset. See Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So.3d 867, 872-73 (Fla. 2010) (concluding that a marital home that is nonmarital property is not transformed into a marital asset when encumbered by mortgage paid for with marital funds); Higgins v. Higgins, 226 So.3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (concluding that use of marital funds to satisfy a marital debt secured by nonmarital property was not commingling, did not transform property into a marital asset, or cause property to lose nonmarital character); Fashingbauer v. Fashingbauer, 19 So.3d 401, 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (concluding that husband's use of nonmarital property to obtain a line of credit used to purchase marital property did not transform nonmarital property into marital property).On these facts, only an enhancement in value of the Miami Property, if any, minus any indebtedness, would become a marital asset for equitable distribution purposes.