Opinion
No. 2D21-719.
11-30-2022
Christine M. ROGERS, Appellant, v. Mark M. ROGERS, Appellee.
Mark V. Silverio and Parker R. Hall of Silverio & Hall, P.A., Naples, for Appellant. Christopher D. Donovan of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Naples, for Appellee.
Mark V. Silverio and Parker R. Hall of Silverio & Hall, P.A., Naples, for Appellant.
Christopher D. Donovan of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Naples, for Appellee.
MORRIS, Chief Judge.
Christine M. Rogers (the former wife) appeals a final judgment dissolving her eighteen-year marriage to Mark M. Rogers (the former husband). She raises numerous issues on appeal. We find merit in only one of her issues, which requires us to reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings on the equitable distribution of the marital assets.
In the final judgment, the trial court found that a Prowler boat was a nonmarital asset belonging to the former husband because it was a gift from the former husband's father, paid for with money from the father's trust. The court found that the Prowler boat was purchased in July 2016 for $220,000 and is currently valued at $227,394, based on testimony from the former wife's expert. The former wife argues on appeal that the former husband failed to meet his burden to establish that the boat is a nonmarital asset because the boat was purchased with funds that were commingled in the parties' joint bank account.
"We review a trial court's characterization of an asset as marital or non-marital de novo and any factual findings necessary to make this legal conclusion for competent, substantial evidence." Dravis v. Dravis, 170 So.3d 849, 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Tradler v. Tradler, 100 So.3d 735, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)). "`Nonmarital assets and liabilities' include ... [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. (2018). However,
[n]onmarital assets may lose their non-marital character and become marital assets where, as here, they have been commingled with marital assets. Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So.3d 357, 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). This is especially true with respect to money because "[m]oney is fungible, and once commingled it loses its separate character." Pfrengle v. Pfrengle, 976 So.2d 1134, 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Belmont v. Belmont, 761 So.2d 406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("Money loses its nonmarital character when it is commingled with marital money....").
Dravis, 170 So. 3d at 852 (holding that trial court properly classified cash gifts from the former wife's mother as marital assets when the gifts were commingled with marital funds); see Steiner v. Steiner, 746 So.2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that nonmarital account became marital property when marital funds were commingled in account and account was used to pay parties' living expenses).
Here, the evidence did not show that the boat was purchased directly by the father as a gift for the former husband. Rather, the evidence showed that the funds used to buy the boat originated from the father's trust. The former husband testified that he received three withdrawals from his father's trust during a three-month period from November 2015 to January 2016; however, there was no evidence that these trust funds were paid directly to the boat manufacturer. Rather, the former wife testified that the money used to buy the boat was placed in the parties' joint bank account and that the parties used that account to pay their marital bills. Accordingly, the funds lost their nonmarital character and the boat purchased with the funds should have been treated as a marital asset. See Dravis, 170 So. 3d at 852 ("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.... [T]he proceeds of the gifts were commingled with proceeds that were marital assets ... and, as a matter of law, they became marital assets subject to equitable distribution."); Struble v. Struble, 787 So.2d 48, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that vehicle should have been classified as a marital asset because it was purchased with proceeds from the sale of the wife's nonmarital home after the proceeds "were deposited into the parties' joint account and commingled with marital funds"). This case is distinguishable from the authorities cited by the trial court because there was no commingling with marital funds in those cases. Cf. Grieco v. Grieco, 917 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that husband's premarital money was nonmarital even though it was held in a jointly-titled account because the evidence showed that the wife's name was on the account only as a matter of "convenience" and the premarital money was never commingled with marital funds in the account); Street v. Street, 303 So.3d 1253, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (holding that motorcycle was a nonmarital asset where "the husband received the Harley Davidson Motorcycle as a gift from his father").
The former husband's father passed away before the final hearing in this case. The former husband relied on bank statements from the father's trust to show that the money came from the father's trust. The amount received from the father and placed into the joint marital account exceeded the purchase price of the boat by $21,000, and the former husband has not pointed to any explanation for why this additional money was given to the parties by the father.
We also note that the trial court found that the boat was titled in the name of the former husband's business, Jolly Rogers Guide Services, Inc. The trial court did not make a finding regarding whether this business is a marital asset, presumably because the former husband presented evidence that it has no value. However, the former wife argues that it is a marital asset because it was formed during the marriage, and the former husband does not dispute this. See § 61.075(6)(a)(1)(a) (providing that "[m]arital assets and liabilities" include "[a]ssets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage"). The fact that the boat was titled to a marital business further supports the conclusion that the boat is a marital asset. See Grieco v. Grieco, 917 So.2d 1052, 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (recognizing that title is a factor to consider in determining whether an asset is nonmarital or marital).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. On remand, the trial court shall make appropriate adjustments to the equitable distribution scheme based on our decision that the boat is a marital asset. We find no other errors in the final judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.