Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BARRY EDWIN TWIGG, Appellant, v. AMANDA JEAN TWIGG n/k/a Amanda Harper, Appellee. No. 2D21-543 May 6, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christine A. Marlewski, Judge. Barry E. Twigg, pro se. Lisa A. Westberry of Westberry Law Group LLC, Tampa; and LeesaAnn Dodds of Dodds Law, Tampa, for Appellee. BLACK, Judge. Barry Twigg, the former husband, appeals from the final judgment dissolving his marriage to Amanda Twigg, the former wife. Because the trial court erred in classifying the former husband's 1963 Buick LaSabre as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution and further erred in valuing the Buick at $3,000, we reverse the final judgment of dissolution in part. It is undisputed that the Buick had been gifted to the former husband prior to his marriage to the former wife. See § 61.075(6)(b)1, 2, Fla. Stat. (2018) (stating that nonmarital assets include "[a]ssets acquired . . . by either party prior to the marriage" and "[a]ssets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal gift"). The Buick was being stored on the property of the former wife's brother so that he could perform repairs to the vehicle. However, the brother did not perform any repairs to the vehicle, and there was otherwise no evidence presented establishing that marital funds had been expended on the vehicle, which had not appreciated in value during the marriage. As such, the trial court erred in classifying the Buick as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. See Abdnour v. Abdnour, 19 So. 3d 357, 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that the trial court erred in classifying the husband's 1940 Pontiac, which had been gifted to him prior to his marriage to the wife, as a marital asset because no evidence was 2 presented establishing that the value of the Pontiac had been enhanced during the marriage through the use of marital funds); cf. Doerr v. Doerr, 751 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in classifying the 1965 Chevrolet Corvette purchased by the husband prior to marriage as a marital asset because the marital funds used to register and insure the vehicle had not enhanced its value). Since the Buick was being stored on the property of the former wife's brother and the former husband was unable to access it, the former husband requested that the former wife take ownership of the Buick and that the trial court "credit" him in the amount of its full value for purposes of the equitable distribution; prior to the final hearing the parties had agreed that the Buick was worth $2,500. In the final judgment, the trial court directed the former husband to sign the title to the Buick over to the former wife but determined its value to be $3,000 and distributed that amount equally between the parties. Because the parties stipulated that the 3 Buick was worth $2,500, as conceded by the former husband on appeal, the trial court erred in valuing the Buick at $3,000.1 Based on the foregoing, we reverse the final judgment insofar as it classified the Buick as a marital asset, valued the Buick at $3,000, and distributed the value of the Buick equally between the parties. On remand, the trial court shall reclassify the Buick as a nonmarital asset, value it at $2,500, and reduce the amount of the equalizing payment owed from the former husband to the former wife by $1,000, the difference between $2,500 and half of $3,000. The final judgment of dissolution is affirmed in all other respects. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 1 The trial court may have arrived at the $3,000 figure because the former husband misstated the stipulated value of the Buick during the final hearing. 4