07-5325 STEPHANIE JEAN WILSON AND NONNIA MERLE BELL v. WILLIAM C. WILSON

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2008 » 07-5325 STEPHANIE JEAN WILSON AND NONNIA MERLE BELL v. WILLIAM C. WILSON

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 07-5325

Case Date: 10/15/2008

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STEPHANIE JEAN WILSON and NONNIA MERLE BELL, Appellants, v. WILLIAM C. WILSON, Appellee. _________________________/ Opinion filed October 15, 2008. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Judy Pittman, Judge. Rhonda S. Clyatt, Panama City, for Appellants. Frank C. Bozeman and Jason B. Onacki of Bozeman, Jenkins & Matthews, P.A., Pensacola; and Jean Marie Downing, Panama City, for Appellee. CASE NO.: 1D07-5325 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

VAN NORTWICK, J. Stephanie Jean Wilson (the former wife) and her grandmother, Nonnia Merle Bell, appeal a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the former wife's nonmarital interest in the Blue

Bay Motor Lodge (the Motel) became a marital asset when the value of the property was enhanced by marital labor and that William C. Wilson (the former husband), appellee, was entitled to equitable distribution in the amount of $100,000 relating to that property. Because we find that the trial court abused its discretion in considering the entirety of the former wife's interest in the Motel to be marital property, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The former husband and former wife were married on May 15, 1999 and resided together as husband and wife until September 2004. During the marriage, Mrs. Bell transferred a one-half interest in the motel property to the former wife, in consideration of which the former wife and Mrs. Bell jointly signed a mortgage on the property in the amount of $120,000. All payments on the mortgage were made by Mrs. Bell using funds from the operations of the Motel. On these facts, the trial court determined that this property "was a gift solely to the wife." It is undisputed that the former wife worked at the Motel. She collected rent, maintained the books, and acted as her grandmother's partner in the business. Although the facts are in dispute regarding whether the former wife was paid for the work she performed at the Motel, the trial court resolved the factual dispute by finding that former wife worked "for free." While the former wife was working at the Motel and attending school, the former husband worked full time to support himself and
2

former wife. It is also undisputed that the former husband also performed some maintenance work at the Motel. On October 25, 2004, the former wife transferred her interest in the Motel property back to her grandmother and Mrs. Bell sold the property in August 2005 for the sum of $810,000. In July 2005, former husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and subsequently filed a notice of lis pendens on the Motel. Mrs. Bell agreed to place $100,000 into an escrow account in exchange for which the former husband released the Motel from any claim or interest. The former husband also amended his petition for dissolution of marriage to add Mrs. Bell as a necessary party. The trial court granted the dissolution of marriage and determined, in pertinent part, that the former wife's "non-marital interest in the Blue Bay Motor Lodge Property became a marital asset when there was an enhancement in value and appreciation of the non-marital asset resulting from [former wife]'s working for free to help [Mrs. Bell] continue to run the Lodge." Finding that the only evidence presented as to the value of the enhancement to the Motel was the agreement of the parties to place $100,000 into an escrow account, the trial court awarded, in pertinent part, equitable distribution to the husband in the amount of $100,000. This appeal followed. "We review the circuit court's distribution of marital assets for abuse of
3

discretion." Martin v. Martin, 923 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In connection with a dissolution of marriage, the trial court must determine which property is nonmarital and which is marital. A valuation of the significant marital assets shall be made and "any distribution of marital assets . . . shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment . . . based on competent substantial evidence . . ."

Download 07-5325 STEPHANIE JEAN WILSON AND NONNIA MERLE BELL v. WILLIAM C. WILSON.pdf