Witt-Bahls v. Bahls
| Decision Date | 20 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D14–152.,4D14–152. |
| Citation | 193 So.3d 35 |
| Parties | Sonya WITT–BAHLS, Appellant, v. Dennis BAHLS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
193 So.3d 35
Sonya WITT–BAHLS, Appellant,
v.
Dennis BAHLS, Appellee.
No. 4D14–152.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 20, 2016.
Lori D. Shelby, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Theodore H. Uno of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Hollywood (withdrawn after filing brief), for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a motion for rehearing for the sole purpose of conforming certain language to that currently used in the relevant statutes. We grant the motion, withdraw the opinion of this Court issued February 3, 2016, and substitute the following.
In this case, Appellant Sonya Witt–Bahls (“the wife”) appeals various aspects of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage between her and Appellee Dennis Bahls (“the husband”). We reverse the judgment insofar as it failed to provide the specific steps required for the wife to reestablish contact with her child beyond supervised timesharing. We affirm on all other issues, but write to address the passivity of appreciation of stock in a marriage.
Background
The husband worked at Kiewit Incorporated (“Kiewit”) for twelve years prior to the marriage. Kiewit is a privately-held international company employing thousands of people. The husband was demoted at least twice during the marriage and was eventually terminated. At his highest position, there were seven or eight levels of management above the husband.
The husband had purchased a large number of shares of Kiewit stock prior to the marriage. The husband purchased these shares using a bank loan on which he made monthly repayments. A CPA called by the husband testified that there had been no payments on the loan other than interest payments. When the husband was terminated from Kiewit, his stock was liquidated. The stock sold for substantially more than the outstanding balance of the loan used to purchase them. The trial
court found that the appreciation of the stock was passive and therefore not a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
In addition to testimony regarding their financial affairs, the trial court also heard from many individuals regarding the issue of appropriate parental responsibility and timesharing for the parties' child. This testimony included recommendations that the wife receive therapy and worries that the wife had coached the child into making false reports of abuse. The trial judge's takeaway was that he was “concern[ed]” with the wife and that “it would [not] be in [the child's] best interest if mom's time with him was unsupervised.”
The court found that “joint decision making would be detrimental to [the child] in this case as of today. As of today.” The court did not order counselling or therapy for the wife, and instead “want[ed] to see what mom is going to do about [the court's concerns].” The court specifically said that it was not “com[ing] up with a magical answer.” Instead, the court said that, “[s]hould the day come when mom and dad and [the child], or any combination, along with healthcare providers thinks it would be a good idea to drop the supervised conditions, you come back and see me.”
The court ordered shared parental responsibility with the husband having ultimate decision-making and also ordered that the husband have majority timesharing and that wife have no unsupervised contact with the child.
Analysis
I. Appreciation of Stock
Determinations of assets as marital or nonmarital are reviewed de novo. Preudhomme v. Bailey, 82 So.3d 138, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Marital assets are subject to distribution between the formerly married parties. § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). Marital assets include “[t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both.” Id. § 61.705(6)(a)1.b.
The enhanced value of stock from a company for which the owning spouse works can be considered a marital asset and be subject to equitable distribution. See, e.g., Pagano v. Pagano, 665 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, it can also be a nonmarital asset if marital effort or assets are not used in so enhancing its value. See, e.g., Oxley v. Oxley, 695 So.2d 364, 367–68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The question raised in this appeal is whether the husband exerted the sort of “effort” required to move the appreciation value from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mallick v. Mallick
...; Solomon v. Solomon, 251 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; Whissell v. Whissell, 222 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; Forssell v. Forssell, 188 So.3d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; Tzynder v. Edelsburg, 184 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; D......
-
Solomon v. Solomon
...restrictions is error. This applies to both the prevention of timesharing altogether and to restrictions." Witt–Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So.3d 35, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citation omitted) (quoting Ross v. Botha, 867 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ). Where a final judgment fails to set forth......
-
Dukes v. Griffin, CASE NO. 1D16–4883
...and eliminate time-sharing restrictions. See, e.g., Perez v. Fay, 160 So.3d 459, 466–67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; Witt–Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So.3d 35, 38–39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). But we can find no statutory basis for requiring trial courts to do so. Ms. Dukes' argument and the cases she identifies......
-
Hua v. Tsung
...in DSC Holdings Limited We review de novo the trial court's characterization of an asset as marital or nonmarital. Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35, 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). On appeal, Wife contends that Husband's ownership of thirty-four percent of the shares of DSC Holdings Limited, whic......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. See, e.g., Perez v. Fay , 160 So.3d 459, 466–67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Witt–Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So.3d 35, 38–39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), which requires the trial courts to set forth specific steps and requirements by which a parent can restore redu......
-
Temporary relief
...Munoz v. Munoz , 210 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Tzynder v. Edelsburg , 184 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Witt-Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). §13:42 Restrict or Deny Time-sharing Overnight time-sharing is a very important component of a parent’s time-sharing rights.......
-
Parental responsibility
..., 316 So.3d 287 (Fla. 2021) (abrogating Munoz v. Munoz , 210 So. 3d 227, Tzynder v. Edelsburg , 184 So. 3d 583, and Witt-Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So. 3d 35).] The C.N. Court declined to address the conflict involving initial parenting plans. §14:251 Jurisdiction; Mandatory Filing of UCCJEA Affi......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...not actively manage her premarital assets, the husband made no claim to the appreciation of the wife’s holdings. [ Witt-Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that appreciation of stock of company for which husband worked that was purchased prior to marriage was not due......