5D00-3228 Cattaneo v. Cattaneo

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 5D00-3228.op

Case Date: 12/31/2001

Plaintiff: 5D00-3228 Cattaneo

Defendant: Cattaneo

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001

VASHTI CATTANEO, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D00-3228

ANDREW V. CATTANEO, Appellee. / Opinion filed January 4, 2002 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County, Richard G. Weinberg, Judge. Timothy M. Goan of Timothy M. Goan, P.A., Palm Coast, for Appellant. Jerome Rotenberg of Chiumento & Associates, P.A., Palm Coast, for Appellee. THOMPSON, C.J. Vashti Cattaneo (former wife) appeals a final judgment of dissolution dissolving the marriage between her and Andrew V. Catttaneo (former husband). We reverse. The former husband and former wife were married on April 14, 1997, in Port of Spain, Trinidad. For much of the two-year marriage, they lived in Palm Coast in a jointly-titled home. In his petition for dissolution of marriage, the former husband alleged that the former wife, a resident of Trinidad, had married the former husband "solely for the purpose of obtaining permanent residency in the United States." Evidence to support that allegation,

however, was scant. The former wife and former husband stipulated that the jointly-titled marital home had a value of $90,000.00. The trial court determined that the former wife was entitled to an equitable distribution of 50% of the increase in the home's value during the marriage, but that the base cost of the home was "subject to the husband's special equity from his nonmarital assets." The trial court reasoned: A lot was purchased from the husband's assets for $4,400.00 and a new house was contracted to be built for $82,510.00, for a total investment of $86,910.00. This all came from the husband's prior savings and sale of the Broward condominium. ***** The wife claimed the home was a gift by the husband as it was taken in joint names. The husband denies this and except for a claimed statement by the husband to the wife there is no evidence of a gift to support a preponderance of the evidence test. The parties agreed on the value of the home as $90,000.00 today which results in an increase in value of $3,090.00 during the marriage. The court's reasoning and judgment were erroneous. By both statute and case law, entireties property is presumed to be marital, regardless of the date of acquisition.

Download 5D00-3228.op.pdf