ESTRELLA MEDEROS-SIBILA, APPELLANT,
v.
JORGE A. SIBILA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this equitable distribution case arising from a 1985 divorce, the appellate court reversed the trial court's allocation of marital assets because it left one spouse with over 90% of marital assets while awarding the other spouse only a home equity interest. The court remanded for a more balanced distribution that considers all assets accumulated during the marriage.
The court held that the disproportionate distribution was inequitable error and reversed the award of Jorge's one-half share in the marital home, directing the trial court on remand to consider all marital assets and devise a more equitable distribution. The court also reversed the denial of Estrella's credit for one-half of the mortgage interest payments on the marital home.
[1] An equitable distribution of marital assets requires consideration of all assets accumulated by both parties during the marriage.
[2] A trial court's failure to consider a spouse's assets accumulated during the marriage may result in a disproportionate distribution of marital property.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We agree that the equities in this case do not support such a disproportionate distribution.”
The court's conclusion that the trial court's allocation leaving Jorge with 90% of marital assets was inequitable and reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstrella Mederos-Sibila (physician) and Jorge A. Sibila (attorney) were married in 1974 and had two children. Both began professional careers in 1979.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Estrella Mederos-Sibila and Jorge A. Sibila were married in 1974. The marriage produced two children, Jorge Antonio and Estrellita Sofia. Both parents began professional careers in 1979. Estrella is a physician with a general practice, and Jorge is an attorney. The parties were divorced in 1985.
In this appeal, Estrella challenges the equitable distribution fashioned by the trial court in its final order of dissolution. She contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to consider the assets accumulated by Jorge during the marriage while at the same time awarding Jorge his one-half interest in the marital home.1 The distribution left Jorge with more than ninety percent of the marital assets.
We agree that the equities in this case do not support such a disproportionate distribution. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Farkas v. Farkas, 452 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We, therefore, reverse that portion of the order awarding Jorge his one-half share in the marital home. On remand, we direct the trial court to devise a more equitable distribution.
The trial court should consider Jorge’s assets acquired during the marriage, including proceeds from the sale of a second home titled solely in his name, his one-half interest in a condominium warehouse, his credit union account, and his IRA and Keogh plans.
The trial court may, if it wishes, award Jorge’s one-half interest in the marital home to Estrella as part of the equitable distribution. Regardless of the disposition of the marital home, we find error in that portion of the order denying Estrella a credit for one-half of the mortgage interest payments on the marital home. See Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (to require one spouse, by making payments on home formerly held as tenants by entirety, to increase equity of other spouse is impermissible where no basis in record to relieve other spouse of his obligation). We, therefore, reverse and remand with directions to allow Estrella the credit.
We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects, including the ruling that both parties bear their own attorneys’ fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
. The provisions of the final judgment allow Estrella the exclusive use of the marital home until the last minor child of the parties reaches majority, becomes self-supporting, dies, discontinues residence with Estrella, or until Estrella resides at some other location with the minor children.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bujarski v. Marcel J. Bujarski, 530 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…v. Farkas, 452 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984) (90% award of marital assets to wife, 10% to husband reversed); Sanders v. Sanders, 492 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (72% of marital assets to husband, 18% to wife reversed). Mederos-Si-bila v. Sibila, 525 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988), (90% award of marital assets to husband reversed); Carr v. Carr, 522 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (79% award to husband and 21% to wife reversed). The court awarded the wife $200.00 per month permanent alimony, which it expre…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Farkas v. Karin Farkas, 452 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)