Ervin v. Ervin
1989 WL 135537, 553 So. 2d 230 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's unequal distribution of marital assets constitutes an abuse of discretion if the rationale for the unequal split is not supported by any evidence in the record. A spouse's business acumen and hard work in accumulating wealth during the marriage do not automatically qualify as "extraordinary services" justifying a lopsided distribution.
Facts:
- Carol Ann Ervin and Eddie L. Ervin, Jr. married in 1980, with both parties starting with minimal assets.
- In 1981, with Carol's consent, Eddie quit his salaried job to start a restaurant business.
- Carol continued her employment, providing the family's primary or sole income while Eddie sought financing and developed the business.
- The restaurant opened in 1982 and became highly successful, leading to the accumulation of significant assets.
- At the time of the dissolution filing in 1987, the marital estate, derived primarily from the business, was valued at approximately $8,000,000.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1987, Carol Ann Ervin filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Eddie L. Ervin, Jr. in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution, which awarded Carol assets valued at $1,120,000 and Eddie assets valued at $6,500,000.
- Carol Ann Ervin, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, arguing the asset distribution was inequitable.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by making a grossly unequal distribution of marital assets based on the unsupported finding that the higher-earning spouse needs the majority of the assets to continue operating a successful business?
Opinions:
Majority - Joanos, J.
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by making a grossly unequal distribution of marital assets based on a rationale that is not supported by evidence. The starting point for equitable distribution is an equal split. While a spouse's business acumen may be responsible for asset accumulation, this does not constitute an "extraordinary contribution" justifying an unequal award, particularly when the other spouse provided financial and emotional support during the business's formative years. The trial court's finding that Eddie Ervin needed the assets to continue the business was not pleaded by him nor supported by any evidence, and therefore cannot justify awarding Carol Ervin only 15% of the marital estate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that "equitable distribution" in Florida presumes an equal division of marital assets as a starting point. It clarifies that one party's significant contribution to asset accumulation through hard work or business skill is considered a normal marital contribution, not an "extraordinary service" that automatically warrants a larger share. The ruling serves as a check on trial court discretion, requiring that any deviation from an equal split be based on specific factors pleaded and proven with evidence, not on judicial assumptions about business necessity.
