Former Wife Appeals Decision To Award Necklace To Former Husband

In the case of MacPherson v. MacPherson, the former wife argued that the trial court erred when it distributed a necklace owned by the deceased brother of the former husband despite the fact that the former husband failed to present any evidence at trial that the necklace existed or was in the former’s wife’s possession. The wife appealed the decision to distribute the necklace to the former husband asking the court to review the matter for abuse of discretion. According to Florida law, the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities must be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence.

In this case, neither party introduced evidence concerning the necklace. The necklace was referenced in the former husband’s counsel’s closing argument, but an attorney’s argument is not considered evidence. Because there was no evidence in the record to establish the existence of the necklace, the appeals court determined that the trial court erred by requiring the former wife to return the necklace to the former husband. In light of this, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s ruling regarding the necklace, finding that the necklace should stay with the wife.

Analysis 

Generally speaking, inherited property is considered separate property for the purposes of the marital estate. In other words, property acquired via inheritance is not subject to equitable distribution and is not considered a part of the marital estate. Inheritance is an exception to the rule that all property acquired during a marriage is property of the marital estate. Inherited property remains the property of the party who inherited it regardless of any other consideration.

In adjudicating this matter, the trial court never heard testimony regarding the necklace at all. The former husband never made mention of the necklace during the trial and no evidence was proffered regarding the fact that the necklace was inherited. Since the trial court never based its decision to distribute the necklace to the former husband based on evidence, the appeals court ruled that it abused its discretion.

The loan 

In addition to the necklace, the court was asked to determine whether or not a loan made by the former husband’s parents was a liability of the former husband or the marriage. In other words, was the loan separate property or marital property? In this case, the trial court determined it was. However, on appeal, the appellate court noted that the loan was made after the petition for the dissolution of marriage. It therefore should have been considered non-marital property. The appeals court reversed the decision concerning the loan.

Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Lawyer Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC represents the interests of Tampa residents seeking a divorce in Florida. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing key issues such as equitable distribution of the marital estate, alimony, child custody, and child support.

Source:

casetext.com/case/macpherson-v-macpherson-18?q=dissolution%20of%20marriage%202023&jxs=fl&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case&tab=keyword