Geraci v. Geraci , 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20172 ( 2014 )

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
PETER A. GERACI, )
)
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D13-1206
)
SHEILA A. GERACI, )
)
Appellee/Cross-Appellant. )
)
Opinion filed December 12, 2014.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Richard A. Weis and
Cheryl K. Thomas, Judges.
Patricia K. Kuhlman and David A. Maney of
Maney, Damsker, Jones & Kuhlman, P.A.,
Tampa; and Mark A. Linsky of Mark A.
Linsky, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-
Appellee.
Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., and Amy S. Farrior
of Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa; and
David M. Carr of David Michael Carr, P.A.,
Tampa; and Matias Blanco, Jr., Tampa, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The former husband, Peter A. Geraci, appeals the judgment of dissolution
of marriage from his former wife, Sheila A. Geraci. She cross appeals from the same
judgment. Except for an issue involving a $220,000 certificate of deposit, we affirm the
trial court.
This couple married in 1982. The marriage lasted nearly thirty years.
Prior to and during the marriage, Mr. Geraci's family had substantial business and real
estate investments primarily in Pasco County and Hillsborough County. At the time of
the marriage, the couple executed an antenuptial agreement in which Ms. Geraci
waived all rights to support and most rights to equitable distribution in the event of a
divorce. The dissolution proceeding was extensively litigated with the focus of the
dispute on the enforceability of the antenuptial agreement and the marital or nonmarital
status of the extensive real estate holdings. The record on appeal is approximately
twenty-five thousand pages in length, and as a digital record, it has been a challenge for
this court to review.
In the trial court, this case was resolved in a two-step process. First, the
enforceability of the antenuptial agreement was litigated before Judge Weis, and then
the issues of support and equitable distribution were litigated before Judge Thomas.
Judge Weis determined that the 1982 antenuptial agreement was abandoned or
rescinded by mutual consent as a result of the conduct of the parties during this long
marriage. The law of the Second District has long recognized that an abandonment of
an antenuptial agreement is a factual possibility. See McMullen v. McMullen, 185 So.
2d 191, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). After a review of the evidence, we conclude that the
trial court's determination that the parties' conduct over the life of this marriage effected
an abandonment of the antenuptial agreement is supported by competent, substantial
evidence.
-2-
The impact of the ruling on the antenuptial agreement is softened by
Judge Thomas's subsequent ruling that Mr. Geraci had retained the nonmarital status of
much of his property. To the largest extent, Judge Thomas accepted the testimony of
Mr. Geraci's financial expert. As a result, the amount of appreciation to real estate
treated as marital property subject to equitable distribution was quite limited. Of the
more than twenty-nine million dollars of assets valued in the final judgment, more than
twenty million dollars of assets were treated as Mr. Geraci's nonmarital property. Only
8.4 million dollars of property was subject to equitable distribution, and it was equally
divided. As for support, the trial court determined that Ms. Geraci's needs per month
totaled $12,657. After accounting for investment income and other factors, the trial
court awarded Ms. Geraci $6928 per month in permanent periodic alimony.
We reject Mr. Geraci's arguments that the antenuptial agreement prevents
the award of support or equitable distribution in this case. The valuation of the assets
for equitable distribution is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and we find
no abuse of discretion in the awards made by Judge Thomas. Likewise, we reject Ms.
Geraci's argument that the trial court was required to base the equitable distribution on
a larger portion of the real estate.
In the final judgment, Judge Thomas determined that shortly before filing
for divorce, Ms. Geraci removed approximately $220,000 from a certificate of deposit
solely owned by Mr. Geraci. We can find no adjustment to any monetary award in the
final judgment to account for this determination. We do not know whether Judge
Thomas factored that amount into the support provided during the pendency of the
proceeding or whether this amount was simply overlooked in the calculations.
-3-
Accordingly, we reverse this judgment only to the extent of requiring Judge Thomas on
remand to address this $220,000 issue and enter an amended judgment providing
appropriate relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
-4-