Tag: dividing property

Property Division is Not Half Bad

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

They say a guy knows he’s in love when he loses interest in his car. A Kansas man is showing the reverse is also true. Alternatively, that would explain why the Kansas man still clings to his half-of-a-car long after his love ended. At the very least,his half-a-car is physical proof that a property division means equal halves.

The Better Half

According to the Kansas City Star, the late-Edgerton Mayor, Ray Braun, used to own the gas station where the front half of his 1987 Chevrolet Citation is parked, a testament to a successful property division.

On the side of the car is a sign which reads:

“Divorced. She got ½.”

The former mayor is the culprit who put his half of the equitable distribution – the half-car – in front of the gas station.

Some view his half a car as a landmark. If you go to Kansas City, or anywhere around, and ask about this town, they have no clue where it’s at. But if you ask them, ‘You remember that little half-car that’s off 56?’ ‘Yeah!’ ‘Well, that’s that little town.

But at a special morning meeting, the three council members in attendance decided unanimously for the city attorney to draft a resolution to finally be rid of the half car.

Florida Property Division

I’ve written about property division in Florida many times before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their nonmarital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties. In dividing the marital assets and debts though, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal.

However, if there is a justification for an unequal distribution, the court can give less than equal.

When a court orders an unequal distribution, it must base the decision on certain factors, including some of the following:

  • The contribution to the marriage by each spouse.
  • The economic circumstances of the parties.
  • The duration of the marriage.
  • Any interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities.
  • The contribution to the personal career or educational opportunity of the other spouse.
  • The desirability of retaining any asset.
  • The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.
  • Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

The courts don’t even have to wait for the end of the case to distribute property. Florida law allows courts, if they find good cause that there should be an interim partial distribution during a divorce action, to equitably distribute property sooner.

You Don’t Know the Half of It

Braun fitted his half-car with rear caster wheels and used to drive it in parades. But City Council President Clay Longanecker says the car has become “an eyesore” and the Edgerton codes department has ruled it has to be disposed of.

To some Edgerton residents however, the half-car has for years been seen as a welcoming post, a kind of unofficial eyesore monument. and some may fight to keep it.

The biggest joke of all? Braun was never divorced.

The Kansas City Star article is here.

 

New Property Division Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Kaaa! That’s not a scream, it’s a Hawaiian name pronounced “Ka-ah-ah”. Florida divorce lawyers know Kaaa as a famous Florida Supreme Court case which changed equitable distribution here. Kaaa had its faults, but recently the Governor signed a bill to fix it.

Florida Property Divisions

I’ve written about property division before. Property division, or equitable distribution as it is called in Florida, is governed by statute and case law.

Generally, courts set apart to each spouse their non-marital assets and debts, and then distribute the marital assets and debts between the parties.

Marital assets and liabilities include, in part, assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them.

Passive appreciation of a nonmarital asset, a house for example, encumbered with a mortgage paid down with marital funds, may be a marital asset the court must equitably distribute.

Can You Split Nonmarital Property?

Passive appreciation of a house without a mortgage, for example, is not subject to division in a divorce. But what about the passive appreciation of a house with a mortgage, where the principal balance of the mortgage has been paid with marital funds?

In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court held that “passive appreciation of a nonmarital asset … is properly considered a marital asset where marital funds or the efforts of either party contributed to the appreciation.”

The Kaaa court recognized that the marital portion of nonmarital house encumbered by a mortgage paid down with marital funds includes two components:

(1) a portion of the enhanced value of the marital asset resulting from the contributions of the nonowner spouse and

(2) a portion of the value of the passive appreciation of that asset that accrued during the marriage.

The Kaaa Problem

The Supreme Court created a formula for courts to use in determining the value of the passive appreciation of nonmarital real property for equitable distribution.

But the Kaaa formula was flawed because there is no relationship between the amount of marital funds used to pay down a mortgage during a marriage, and the passive appreciation of the property.

Also, the Kaaa case required a nonowner spouse to have made contributions to the property as a prerequisite to sharing in the passive appreciation of the property.

A lot of people argued that Kaaa conflicted with our equitable distribution statute, which said marital assets include the enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting from the use of marital funds.

The Fix Bill

The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar helps create legislation, and also monitors proposals in the Florida Legislature. Members of the Section advise legislators and staff and even testify before the Legislature.

Governor Scott signed a bill to fix Kaaa. The bill amends our equitable distribution statute and establishes a statutory formula for courts to use.

The new statutory formula does not require the nonowner spouse to have made contributions to the property, as required under the Kaaa calculation.

The fix bill also bars the marital portion of nonmarital real property from exceeding the total net equity of the property on the valuation date in the divorce action, and even allows a party to argue that the formula shouldn’t apply.

The new law takes effect July 1, 2018.

The Kaaa fix bill is available here.

 

The Engagement Ring

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

If the luck of the Irish holds, your engagement diamond may be yours forever. Diamonds, given to you after someone asks the question: “will you marry me?” with a “yes” to follow, are a contract. This is why so many of them end up in court property division cases.

The Engagement Ring Tradition

Until the 1930s, a woman jilted by her fiancé could sue for financial compensation for “damage” to her reputation under what was known as the “Breach of Promise to Marry” action.

As courts began to abolish such actions, diamond ring sales rose in response to a need for a symbol of financial commitment from the groom.

I’ve written about engagement rings before. Florida abolished the appropriately termed “heart balm statutes”. Heart balm statutes were laws allowing couples to sue each other to recover money for the alienation of affections and breaches of contract to marry.

As one court poetically noted:

[A] gift given by a man to a woman on condition that she embark on the sea of matrimony with him is no different from a gift based on the condition that the donee sail on any other sea. If, after receiving the provisional gift, the donee refuses to leave the harbor – if the anchor of contractual performance sticks in the sands of irresolution and procrastination – the gift must be restored to the donor. A fortiori would this be true when the donee not only refuses to sail with the donor, but, on the contrary, walks up the gangplank of another ship arm in arm with the donor’s rival?

Engagement Rings in Court

After an engagement ring is given, and if the couple doesn’t marry, in New York the law deems a broken engagement as no one’s fault. Accordingly, the ring should be given back to the giver, with few exceptions. Most states have adopted that approach.

This is true in Florida. Lawsuits to recover an engagement ring by disappointed donors usually are resolved by courts looking to see if the engagement was terminated by the donee or by mutual consent of the parties.

The rationale is that rings are given on the implied condition that a marriage ensue.

Once a marriage proposal is extended and accepted — once the promise is made — no matter what day of the year, that ring is no longer considered a gift. It’s a contract to enter into marriage.

Most states embraced the no-fault rule after the 1997 case of Heiman v. Parrish. There, the Kansas Supreme Court decided that no matter who broke the engagement, the ring should be given back to the giver if the parties don’t marry.

“Ordinarily, the ring should be returned to the donor, regardless of fault,” the court found.

But Montana hasn’t followed the rule. Montana classifies the ring as an unconditional gift. The recipient keeps it. California and Texas take a middle-of-the road approach: the recipient of the ring is expected to return it, unless the giver called off the engagement.

The general rule in Florida is that an engagement ring given before the marriage, becomes a non-marital gift if the marriage is completed. If so, the ring becomes the non-marital property of the Wife.

If the engagement ring is viewed by the court as a non-marital asset, it is not subject to equitable distribution in divorce proceedings, and the spouse keeps it as their own.

The New York Times article is here.