FRANXMAN v. FRANXMAN (2023)

Appellant seeks review of a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Appellee. She raises several errors on appeal including unacceptable delay in entering the order, equitable distribution, and alimony. We affirm most of the order, finding no reversible error or abuse of discretion, except as follows.

We reverse the trial court's inclusion of a dollar-specific distribution of Appellee's City of Tampa pension. Appellant makes this claim, and Appellee concedes error. The pension was properly designated as a marital asset, but the value should not have been set or included in the equitable distribution chart as it is a future asset subject to change in value. The trial court should remove all values attributed to this asset.

We reverse the trial court's finding that Appellee's interest in $2,000 worth of AT&T stock was nonmarital. The only evidence adduced at the dissolution hearing was that this stock was acquired during the marriage and so was presumptively marital. § 61.075(8), Fla. Stat. (stating all assets acquired during marriage are presumed marital).

We remand to the trial court to clarify why it did not require Appellee to pay back-due temporary support it had previously ordered. It is possible the trial court intended to forgive Appellee's past-due amounts given its unequal distribution, but it is unclear from the order.

We remand to the trial court to address Appellant's petition to restore her maiden name. See § 68.07(1), (9), Fla. Stat. (stating chancery courts have jurisdiction to change the name of any person and that the normal restrictions do not apply to dissolution of marriage proceedings).

If our reversal requires reconsideration of the overall equitable distribution, the trial court is empowered to do so. The order is affirmed in all other respects.

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.

Per Curiam.

Bilbrey, M.K. Thomas, and Long, JJ., concur.