Roth v. Roth
2008 WL 80224, 973 So. 2d 580 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court commits error when it includes assets dissipated during dissolution proceedings in an equitable distribution scheme without evidence and a specific finding that the spending spouse engaged in intentional misconduct for a purpose unrelated to the marriage. A court also errs by imputing income to a spouse at a level they have never previously earned without competent, substantial evidence to support that earning capacity.
Facts:
- Allan Michael Roth (Husband) and Pamela Gertrude Roth (Wife) married in 1995.
- The couple resided in a house the Husband owned prior to the marriage.
- The Husband, a stockbroker, handled all the family's financial affairs, while the Wife worked sporadically after their first child was born.
- The Husband's income peaked at $104,000 in 2000, but after a career change to insurance, his average annual income during the dissolution proceedings was approximately $60,000.
- The dissolution proceedings lasted for five years.
- During this five-year period, the Husband liquidated a $100,000 CD, $220,000 from a bank account, and funds from a brokerage account.
- The Husband testified without contradiction that he used these liquidated funds to pay court-ordered temporary support, expenses for the marital residence (mortgages, taxes, utilities), and his own living expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Allan Michael Roth (the Husband) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Pamela Gertrude Roth (the Wife) in a Florida trial court on July 26, 2001.
- During the lengthy proceedings, the trial court ordered the Husband to pay temporary support to the Wife.
- The trial court entered an amended final judgment of dissolution that divided marital assets, imputed $150,000 in annual income to the Husband for child support purposes, and awarded attorney's fees to the Wife.
- The judgment required the Husband to sign a promissory note and a mortgage on his nonmarital home to secure a $295,379 equalizing payment to the Wife.
- When the Husband refused to sign the documents, the trial court found him in civil contempt and ordered him jailed until he complied.
- The Husband appealed the amended final judgment, the contempt order, and the attorney's fees award to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
- The Wife filed a cross-appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of her request for alimony.
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 including assets in an equitable distribution scheme that were spent during the dissolution proceedings, when the uncontradicted evidence shows the funds were used for marital expenses and court-ordered support, and there is no finding of intentional misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Stringer, J.
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by including dissipated assets in an equitable distribution scheme where there is no evidence of intentional misconduct. The general rule is that assets diminished during dissolution proceedings are excluded from equitable distribution. An exception exists for misconduct, which requires proof that one spouse used marital funds for their own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage during the marital breakdown. Here, the Husband's uncontradicted testimony showed he used the liquidated assets to pay for court-ordered support, marital home expenses, and living costs for both parties. The trial court's finding that the Husband gave 'no explanation' was contrary to the record, especially since the court itself cut short his detailed accounting. Without evidence of misconduct, it was an error to include these assets. The court also erred by imputing $150,000 of income to the Husband, a figure he had never earned, without any evidence of his current earning capacity or available jobs at that salary level. Finally, while a court can use contempt to compel an act like signing documents, it cannot place a lien on a nonmarital homestead for an entire equitable distribution award, but only for the amount of the marital interest in that specific property.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for including dissipated assets in equitable distribution, requiring a specific finding of intentional misconduct rather than mere mismanagement or spending on living expenses. It serves as a strong check on trial courts' discretion to impute income, demanding that such decisions be grounded in competent, substantial evidence of actual earning capacity, not speculation. The decision also clarifies the limits of securing property awards, distinguishing between permissible liens on nonmarital property (limited to marital interest) and impermissible ones. The holding on contempt affirms a court's power to enforce orders for specific acts, distinguishing them from unconstitutional imprisonment for debt.
Unlock the full brief for Roth v. Roth