PARMINNE PITAMBER
v.
LAKERAM SHIVBARAN
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.
A trial court may not deny a former spouse equitable distribution in the marital home as a sanction for previously contesting the validity of the marriage, even where the home is nonmarital property, because passive appreciation funded by marital assets during the marriage constitutes a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
[1] When a marital home constitutes nonmarital real property but is encumbered by a mortgage serviced with marital funds, the passive, market-driven appreciation of the prope…
[2] A trial court may not deny a former spouse equitable distribution in property as a sanction for that spouse's unsuccessful prior challenge to the validity of the marriage…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“In judicial proceedings, a party simply is not estopped from asserting a later inconsistent position . . . unless the party's initial position was successfully maintained.”
Leitman v. Boone, 439 So. 2d 318, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), cited for the proposition that a party cannot be sanctioned for taking an inconsistent legal position in a later proceeding.
In a dissolution of marriage action, the former wife sought relocation with the parties' child and contested the distribution of the marital residence…
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 Petition To Relocate cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 21, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0198 Lower Tribunal No. 19-27508 ________________
Parminne Pitamber, Appellant,
vs.
Lakeram Shivbaran, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Multack, Judge.
Buckner, Shifrin, Etter, Dugan & Bradfute, P.A. and Emily M. Bradfute, for appellant.
Sandy T. Fox, P.A., Sandy T. Fox, and Sara E. Ross, for appellee.
Before LOGUE C.J., and MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
MILLER, J.
2 Appellant, the former wife, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution. On appeal, she contends the trial court erred in denying her petition for relocation and distributing the marital residence, in toto, to appellee, the former husband. We summarily affirm the comprehensive and wellreasoned portion of the judgment denying relocation because the trial court’s evaluation of the governing statutory factors is supported by competent, substantial evidence of record. See § 61.13001(7), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Chalmers v. Chalmers, 259 So. 3d 878, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (holding “the circuit court properly applied the relocation statute as a matter of law” where the “final judgment set forth its detailed findings of fact as to each factor used to determine the best interests of the child” under sections 61.13(3) and 61.13001(7), the court “did not make any presumption in favor of or against the former [spouse]’s request for relocation[,]” and “competent substantial evidence support[ed] the . . . findings of fact”). However, we are constrained to reverse that aspect of the judgment denying equitable distribution of the marital home because the ruling amounts to an impermissible sanction levied on the former wife for previously contesting the validity of the marriage to no avail. See § 61.075(6)(a)(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“‘Marital assets and liabilities’ include . . . [t]he enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital