Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Fourth District Chief Judge Gross Suggests Court Will Recede From Chapman v. Chapman & O’Neill v. O’Neill

In Mathers v. Brown (4D08-1470), the Fourth District denied a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc of THIS opinion released on September 9, 2009.  Chief Judge Gross wrote a concurring opinion stating:
Appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc was directed at the issue of prejudgment interest. In the proper case, when the issue is before us, this court should recede en banc from Chapman v. Chapman, 866 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and O’Neill v. O’Neill, 868 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Read together, these cases hold that the appreciation in the value of a non-marital brokerage account during a marriage is a marital asset to the extent that it exceeds the passive appreciation in the brokerage account as measured by an appropriate stock index. These cases have gone beyond the language of the statute to create complexity where a spouse brings assets to a marriage.


Post a Comment