ELIZABETH B. MOON, APPELLANT,
v.
PERSONAL REP. OF ESTATE OF MILTON J. MOON; BARBARA MOON, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF MILTON J. MOON; AND THE SURVIVING CHILDREN OF MILTON J. MOON, 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.
Elizabeth Moon appealed a trial court's denial of her claim to a portion of her deceased former husband's individual retirement accounts (IRAs) on remand from a prior appeal. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Moon failed to present sufficient evidence regarding the IRAs' value and the portion attributable to marital efforts.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the claim because Elizabeth Moon failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the value of the IRAs, the portion attributable to passive growth or marital efforts, or expert testimony required to support the segregation of marital from non-marital assets.
[1] A party claiming an interest in marital assets must present sufficient evidence to establish the value of those assets and any portion attributable to passive growth or m…
[2] A party seeking to segregate marital from non-marital assets must provide data, such as expert testimony, to support valuations that can withstand appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“counsel must provide such data to the court as is required to support the segregation of marital from non-marital assets and to support valuations that would withstand appellate review”
Establishes the evidentiary standard that parties must meet to segregate marital from non-marital assets in equitable distribution cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case was previously remanded after the court reversed the distribution of marital property between Elizabeth Moon and her former husband Milton J…
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 Valuation Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court previously reversed the distribution of marital property in this case. See Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). On remand, appellant made a claim against certain individual retirement accounts of her former husband, now deceased. Appellant did not, however, pursue this claim for several years and did not bring the matter to final hearing until July 1998. At that hearing the circuit court made several findings including the following:
The Petitioner (Mrs. Moon) failed to present any evidence to establish the value of the IRAs, and additionally failed to present evidence to establish any value regarding the IRAs attributable to passive growth or marital efforts. Petitioner failed to follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals with respect to the six factors to be considered and has failed to present data in the form of expert testimony or otherwise, to the Court to determine the value of Mr. Moon’s IRAs and to separate a portion of the IRAs to Petitioner under the principles of equitable distribution.
As we noted in the initial appeal on this case, counsel must provide such data to the court as is required to support the segregation of marital from non-marital assets and to support valuations that would withstand appellate review. Moon, 594 So. 2d at 822. We are unable to say that the circuit court abused its discretion by concluding that Mrs. Moon, through her counsel, failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain her burden. Unfortunately for Mrs. Moon, her attempt to prove that Mr. Moon’s non-marital assets had been used as collateral for marital debt was insufficient. See Farrior v. Farrior, 736 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla.1999).
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Moon, 594 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Farrior v. Farrior, 736 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1999)