Opinion
No. 1D19-3324
10-07-2020
Leslie J. LEGERE, Appellant, v. Eva M. LEGERE, Appellee.
Marynelle Hardee of Hardee Legal, PLLC, Gainesville, for Appellant. Beth M. Gordon of The Gordon Law Firm, Williston, for Appellee.
Marynelle Hardee of Hardee Legal, PLLC, Gainesville, for Appellant.
Beth M. Gordon of The Gordon Law Firm, Williston, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Leslie J. Legere appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He argues that the trial court failed to adequately justify its unequal distribution of the parties’ marital assets and liabilities. We agree and reverse.
Background
Leslie J. Legere and Eva M. Legere's 40-year marriage ended in 2019. The parties resided in Maine for most of the marriage, where Ms. Legere had worked many years for the State of Maine and Mr. Legere worked for the railroad system. The couple moved to Florida after Mr. Legere's retirement in 2014.
In her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, Ms. Legere requested an equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities and an award of permanent alimony. Pre-divorce, Ms. Legere's total monthly gross income was $2,542.12, consisting of $1,545.10 from her State of Maine pension and $897.99 from Mr. Legere's railroad spousal pension. Ms. Legere would not be eligible to receive the railroad pension after the divorce but would receive a monthly Railroad Retirement Divorced Spouse Benefit of $171.00 until June 2022, which would then increase to $249.00.
Mr. Legere's total monthly gross income was $4,531.46, consisting of $3,430.46 from his railroad retirement benefits and $1,101.00 from Social Security. Mr. Legere's railroad retirement benefits, governed by the Railroad Retirement Act, were divided into two tiers—a non divisible Tier I benefit of $1,865.00 and a divisible Tier II benefit of $1,565.46. At the final hearing, Ms. Legere requested that Mr. Legere pay her the full Tier II benefit amount plus $300 in alimony for a total monthly spousal support payment of $1,800. Mr. Legere objected to this amount, instead offering to pay $782.73, half of his Tier II benefit.
The trial court entered a final judgment awarding Ms. Legere $1,300 of the Tier II funds as her share of the marital equitable distribution. According to the court, Ms. Legere's total income would be as follows:
$1,545.10 (Maine Pension)
$171.00 (Divorced Spousal Benefit)
$1,300.00 (Equitable Share of Husband's Pension – Tier II)
$3,016.10 (monthly)
Mr. Legere's total income would be as follows:
$1,865.00 (Tier I – Railroad Pension) – non divisible portion
$265.00 (Tier II – Divisible portion of Railroad Pension)
$1,101.00 (Social Security)
$3,231.46 (monthly)
The court denied Ms. Legere's permanent alimony request because Mr. Legere did not have the ability to pay and the parties’ income was essentially equal after distribution. The trial court denied a motion for rehearing and Mr. Legere appealed, among other things, the equitable distribution portion of the final judgment.
Analysis
"The trial court has the authority to order an unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities." Navarro v. Navarro , 209 So. 3d 74, 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). "However, if it does so, the court must provide specific written findings justifying the unequal distribution." Id. Those findings must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Wagner v. Wagner , 61 So. 3d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Here, the trial court's work essentially equalized the parties’ incomes, but did not equally distribute their marital assets. It awarded Ms. Legere 100% of her pension, which was a marital asset, and 86% of Mr. Legere's Tier II benefit, also a marital asset. Out of marital property totaling $3,110, Ms. Legere received $2,845, over 90%, and Mr. Legere received $265, less than 10%. In its final judgment, the court does not mention any of § 61.075(1)’s factors, nor provide written findings explaining its decision. Thus, we remand the equitable distribution portion of the final judgment to allow the court to make the required findings and, if necessary, to craft a new equitable distribution scheme. See Watson v. Watson , 124 So. 3d 340, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; see also Wagner , 61 So. 3d at 1143 (holding that trial courts must consider the ten factors in § 61.075(1) when crafting an unequal distribution of marital assets).
Mr. Legere also takes issue with the trial court ordering a truck loan and credit union loan to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the marital home. The credit union loan was a marital liability titled in both parties’ names, but the truck loan was a nonmarital asset titled in Ms. Legere's name only. Because the court did not provide justification for using marital property to pay off nonmarital debt, we remand for findings here too.
Finally, we do not address the Tier I benefit argument briefed by Mr. Legere because it was not preserved in the trial court.
Conclusion
The trial court's final judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Roberts, Osterhaus, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.