MELISSA LYNN MALONE
v.
RONALD LOUIS MALONE, JR.
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 errs in equitable distribution by assigning 100% of business debt to one spouse when the parties own only 51% of the business and the other spouse's business partner is responsible for the remaining 49% of liabilities.
[1] In equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities in a dissolution of marriage, business liabilities must be allocated proportionally to the parties' ownership…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMelissa Lynn Malone and Ronald Louis Malone, Jr. were parties to a dissolution of marriage. The parties owned 51% of a business, with the former husba…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2025-0653 LT Case No. 2020-DR-003447
MELISSA LYNN MALONE, Appellant,
V.
RONALD LOUIS MALONE, JR., Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. Jennifer Lester Bass, Judge.
Christopher R. Bruce, Ashley Dillman Bruce, and Sarina M. Sabatino, of Bruce Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
Ronald Louis Malone, Jr., Ocala, pro se.
October 30, 2026
HARRIS, J.
Melissa Lynn Malone (“Former Wife") appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered below as well as the order denying her motion for rehearing, reconsideration and to reopen evidence. In this appeal, Former Wife raises numerous issues regarding the judgment and the proceedings below, including that the trial court failed to properly calculate certain
business liabilities in its equitable distribution scheme. This error, according to the Former Wife, has resulted in a largely skewed and unjustified unequal distribution to her detriment. To his credit, Ronald Malone (“Former Husband") has conceded error on this point and has acknowledged that this matter should be remanded to allow the trial court to correct its mathematical error to accurately represent the parties' 51% ownership of these business liabilities.
We find that it was error for the trial court to assign 100% of the business debt to Former Husband in its equitable distribution scheme when the parties own 51% of the business and the Former Husband testified that his business partner is responsible for 49% of these liabilities. We remand for correction of this error and instruct the trial court to reconsider the equitable distribution given the change in debt assignment. We find no reversible error with respect to the additional claims raised by Former Wife and therefore affirm on all remaining issues.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
EISNAUGLE, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.