RALPH W. SYMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN TAYLOR SYMONS, 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 a marital dissolution case, the trial court awarded all disputed personal property (jewelry, piano, and art valued at $75,000) to the former wife based solely on her listing them as marital assets in her financial affidavit, while the former husband had not listed them. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a party's failure to list an asset in a financial affidavit does not constitute an automatic waiver of claims to that asset.
The court held that there is no rule establishing that when one party lists a marital asset and the other party fails to list it in their financial affidavit, this results in an automatic waiver of any claim by the party who failed to list the asset. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to properly address the distribution of the personal property consistent with the premarital contract.
[1] A party's failure to list a marital asset on a financial affidavit does not automatically result in a waiver of any claim to that asset.
[2] A premarital contract provision for the equal division of household goods, with exceptions for personal items, must be followed in dissolution proceedings.
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“We are unaware of any rule that when one party lists a marital asset and the other party fails to list the same asset in his or her financial affidavit, this results in an automatic waiver of any claim by the party who failed to list the asset.”
Establishes the core holding that mere non-listing does not constitute automatic waiver of claims to assets.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoth parties are attorneys who prepared and signed their own handwritten premarital contract. The contract provided that household goods in each party…
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 Financial Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
The former husband has appealed, and the former wife has cross-appealed, numerous aspects of the amended final judgment dissolving their marriage. We affirm as to all but one of the issues raised. We reverse and remand as to that single issue: the distribution of the parties’ marital personal property, including jewelry, a piano, and art.
Both parties are attorneys, and they prepared and signed their own handwritten premarital contract. The trial court ultimately upheld and enforced most of the terms of that agreement. In the case of personal property, the premarital contract provided:
If the marriage fails, then the household' goods in the marital home shall be divided equally, with the exception of personal items which will remain the possession of the party who owns same. The household goods presently in [the former husband’s] home in Marathon, Florida belong to him. The household goods presently in [the former wife’s] apartment in Coconut Grove, Florida belong to her. If these goods are transferred from one place to another they shall remain, for purposes of this contract, the possession of their original owner.
In paragraph 28 of the amended final judgment, however, the trial court made no findings that carried out this provision or recognized any stipulated resolution regarding the personal property. Instead, the trial court found that the former wife had scheduled entries for jewelry ($35,-000), a piano ($10,000), and art ($30,000), as marital assets, while the former husband had not listed these items, “indicating a lack of claim to or interest in these assets.” Apparently concluding that this represented a waiver by the former husband, the trial court awarded all these *31items to the former wife at the valuations shown on her financial affidavit.
In a motion for reconsideration and rehearing following the entry of the initial judgment, the former husband objected to this ruling. He also requested an amendment to establish “a mechanism to divide the parties’ household furniture consistent with the terms of the parties’ premarital contract.” In her response to the motion, the former wife did not oppose the argument that these items of personal property should be divided, and she proposed a method of division. The trial court denied the motion for rehearing, however, noting that the issue had not been raised at trial and he would not consider it for the first time in a motion for rehearing.
We are unaware of any rule that when one party lists a marital asset and the other party fails to list the same asset in his or her financial affidavit, this results in an automatic waiver of any claim by the party who failed to list the asset.1 We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded for further proceedings regarding the personal property.