Dyson v. Dyson

• Decision Date: 02 April 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-2539,90-2539
• Citation: 597 So.2d 320
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Weekly D879 Rudolph DYSON, Appellant, v. Karen DYSON, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 320

597 So.2d 320

17 Fla. L. Weekly D879

Rudolph DYSON, Appellant, v. Karen DYSON, Appellee.

No. 90-2539.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

April 2, 1992.

Leonard E. Ireland, Jr., of Clayton, Johnston, Quincey, Ireland, Felder, Gadd, Smith & Roundtree, Gainesville, for appellant.

Thomas A. Daniel, Gainesville, for appellee.

ZEHMER, Judge.

Rudolph Dyson appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He raises four issues regarding the distribution of the parties' assets and liabilities, three of which involve the application and enforcement of section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1989). We reverse and remand for further proceedings and more specific findings of fact.

On June 20, 1989, Karen Dyson filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, which requested, among other things, that the court grant her a special equity in her husband's separate property, distribute the parties' assets and liabilities, and appoint a receiver for the operation of the parties' jointly-owned corporation, Dyson Cabinets and Millworks, Inc. On July 12, 1989, the circuit court entered an order appointing Mary Ann Broomer, an employee of Dyson Cabinets, as receiver of the business. The record does not contain any reports or orders concerning the receiver's actions as a receiver. This matter ultimately was tried about a year later, and on July 16, 1990, the circuit court entered a final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage and purporting to equally divide the parties' real and personal property. The final judgment recites in part that the parties "have acquired real and personal property during the marriage and the following should be equally divided between the parties:"

6. The cash surrender value of the Husband's life insurance in the amount of $6,800 and the money in the Wife's retirement program with Nationwide Insurance Company in the amount of $7,500.

7. The ten acres of land in Alachua owned by the Husband prior to the marriage shall remain his separate property free and clear of any claim by the Wife, except the Court finds that the Wife is entitled to a special equity in the property to the extent of $9,500.00 which sum represents one half of the marital funds used to pay payments on the property.

8. The equity in the commercial building located in the Hugh Edwards Industrial Park, 2923 N.E. 20th Way, Gainesville, Florida.

* * * * * *

10. The parties own 100% of the stock in Dyson Cabinet and Millwork [sic], Inc. and this business and the debts associated therewith, including the debts to Gainesville State Bank in the amount of $29,861.99, Sales tax in the amount of $6,881.11, and Internal Revenue Service taxes in the amount of $5,801.47, shall be the sole property and responsibility of the Husband subject to a credit to the Wife of $5,000.00 as and for payment for her interest in the business.

On this appeal Rudolph Dyson argues that the circuit court erred in (1) failing to equitably distribute the parties' assets and liabilities, (2) assessing Karen Dyson's special equity in the ten acres of land in Alachua County owned by him prior to the marriage at $9,500, (3) valuing Karen Dyson's pension plan for the purpose of equitable distribution as of the date of the hearing, and (4) assessing Karen Dyson's interest in Dyson Cabinets at $5,000 without sufficient evidence of such value and contrary to the evidence of the case. Before specifically discussing each point it is appropriate to review certain applicable provisions of law.

Section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part that "[i]n a proceeding for dissolution of marriage ..., the court shall set apart to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities and shall distribute between the parties the marital assets and liabilities in such proportions as are equitable, after considering all relevant factors," including among several others:

* * * * * *

(f) The desirability of retaining any asset, including an interest in a business, corporation, or professional practice, intact and free from any claim or interference by the other party.

(g) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement, and production of income or the improvement of, or the incurring of liabilities to, both marital assets and nonmarital assets of the parties.

(h) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

Section 61.075(4) provides:

The date for determining marital assets and liabilities and the value of such assets and the amount of such liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage, unless the trial judge determines another date is just and equitable under the circumstances.

(Emphasis added). Under this statute, the valuation date is presumed to be the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, another date expressly established by a valid separation agreement, or the date on which the petition for dissolution of marriage is filed. Bobb v. Bobb, 552 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The statute also gives the trial court discretion to use another date for valuing the assets and liabilities, if the court determines that use of such other date is just and equitable under the circumstances and both the reason and the other date are stated in the final judgment. Bain v. Bain, 553 So.2d 1389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In order that an appellate court may provide adequate review to assure compliance with the requirements of section 61.075(4), therefore, we conclude that unless the circuit court distributing marital assets in a final judgment of dissolution specifically identifies a valuation date of these assets that is different from the date of filing of the petition and also recites the specific circumstances and considerations that make use of this date just and equitable, we shall presume that for such valuation the circuit court used the date of filing the petition or the date the parties entered into a valid separation agreement, whichever is earlier, unless the record contains a specific written agreement executed and filed by the parties establishing a specific date of valuation. This requirement will avoid disputes by the parties, like the arguments advanced in this case, that the conduct and actions of each party after the valuation date provided in the statute reduced the value of the assets and that such reductions should be taken into consideration in valuing the distributed marital property.

It has also been recognized that "[w]hen property valuation is an integral part of the court's entire plan of distribution, confusion as to value requires reversal of the property award." Ross v. Bandi, 566 So.2d 55, 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Saxton v. Saxton, 454 So.2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In this case, the parties had not made a valid separation agreement prior to filing this action and did not file any agreement as to a valuation date; thus, the circuit court was required to make a determination pursuant to the statute if any date other than the filing date was used for valuation of marital assets. Although there was evidence that the value of some of the assets had changed between the filing date of the petition and the hearing date, and it appears that the trial court may well have used a valuation date other than the filing date, the final judgment fails to indicate which assets were valued other than as of the filing date (i.e., the hearing date), and no reasons were specified for using such other date.

Addressing Rudolph Dyson's first point, that the trial court did not equitably divide the marital properties of the parties, we are unable to determine from the face of the final judgment or upon review of the record what valuation was given to each of the distributed properties, the date of valuation used, or the evidentiary basis for the valuation used in those instances where the court stated a valuation. For this reason, we are unable to adequately perform our appellate review function in determining whether the circuit court abused its discretion in distributing the parties' assets and liabilities in the manner that it did. Therefore, we must reverse the provisions of the final judgment effecting a distribution of the parties' marital assets and liabilities and remand for further written findings of fact in accordance with this opinion. See Eisner v. Eisner, 513 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); De Poorter v. De Poorter, 509 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Reconsideration of all pertinent issues relating to the distribution scheme, especially those discussed below, is necessary on remand. Eisner, 513 So.2d 673. The circuit court shall "receive and consider such further evidence as may be directed by the court or offered by the parties to enable the court to reach an equitable distribution between the parties in accordance with this opinion and decision." Crapps v. Crapps, 501 So.2d 661, 665 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 297 (Fla.1987).

For the guidance of the circuit court and the parties on remand, we also address the remaining three points on appeal.

Appellant's second point complains about the valuation of the wife's marital interest in the 10 acres of land owned by the husband before the marriage on which the parties had made mortgage payments with marital funds. The final judgment provided that Karen Dyson had a "special equity" in this property and valued it at $9,500, "which sum represents one half of the marital funds used to pay payments on the property." There is evidence in the record that Rudolph Dyson acquired title to this property approximately two years prior to the parties' marriage, that approximately $19,000 in marital funds were...