In Goldman v. Goldman, The Fifth District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida ruled that it was error for the trial court not to have designate whether the wife’s checking account and certificate of deposit, both of which were in wife’s name, were marital or nonmarital property for the purposes of equitable distribution. The wife had argued that the assets were nonmarital while the husband had argued that they were marital.
In its final judgment, the trial court stated that “[e]ach party shall be entitled to the sole and exclusive use and possession of the checking/savings, money market, CD and cash accounts in their respective names.”
However the Fifth District Court of Appeals found that this was not enough. “Under the equitable distribution statute, the court must categorize the parties’ assets as nonmarital and marital.” Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So. 2d 883, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA1993) (citing § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1991); Robertson v. Robertson, 593 So. 2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1991)). Because the record was not clear whether the trial court determined that these two assets were the wife’s nonmarital property, or instead, made an unequal distribution of marital assets, the decision was reversed for the trial court to provide clarification.
