Diane Baccus-Horsley has repeatedly demonstrated that she is
date-challenged and I have accused her of being arithmetically challenged.
The arithmetically challenged accusation is based on her
calculations related to two withdrawals I made in 2000. The first was about 10 times the second. Baccus-Horsley could or did not remember that
two withdrawals were involved when checking the percentage of ownership values.
I desired to close my Pioneer II account. Transactions were limited to $100,000 or
less. My premarital Pioneer II account
was over $100,000.00. Diane
Baccus-Horsley had difficulty getting the correct figure for my percentage
ownership of an account in my name in which I placed my ex-spouses funds to
enable her to earn about 9% interest on her funds.
The Florida Supreme Court specified a five step process in Kaaa v Kaaa. I blogged on Kaaa vs. Kaaa is this blog on Thursday, July 16, 2015. After determining the "marital portion", the Florida Supreme Court recommended the Stevens Methodology for allocating the marital portion.
They said that if, for
example, one party brings to the marriage an asset in which he or she has an
equity of fifty percent, the other half of which is financed by marital funds, half the appreciated value at the time
of the petition for dissolution was filed, § 61.075(5)(a) 2, Fla. Stat. (1993),
should be included as a marital asset.
[The other half
of the appreciated value at the time of the petition is nonmarital.]
Florida Family
Lawyers seem to have difficulty with common sense and identifying “half the appreciated value”. Half the appreciated value is marital.
A typical case would have the marriage beginning about the same time as the purchase of the marital home. My case had stipulated values beyond what would be available in a typical case. My case had a stipulated value for the Fair Market Value of my home at the time of my marriage. An eight year period of appreciation belongs to me as a premarital asset.
No comments:
Post a Comment