Flory v. Flory

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34 4, we granted the application for discretionary appeal filed by Appellant Peter John Flory Husband seeking leave to challenge the final judgment and decree effectuating his divorce from Appellee Lucie Wheeler Flory Wife. Husband contends that the trial court erroneously awarded Wife certain assets as separate, non-marital property. We agree that the trial court erred in its division of property, and we therefore reverse and remand.

The parties were married in November 1993, and Wife filed her complaint for divorce in November 2013. During a subsequent bench trial, Husband and Wife each claimed that certain assets should be classified as separate, non-marital property. Among other things, Wife sought to recoup the value of certain stocks, which she owned prior to the marriage, that were liquidated for the purpose of purchasing a marital residence, while Husband sought credit for funds advanced by his mother that were used to make improvements on that residence. The trial court acquiesced to the respective parties’ classification of the property on the basis that equity dictated such an outcome. Relying on the maxim that he who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action, the trial court reasoned that Husband and Wife’s respective claims to separate property were on equal footing and, thus, could all be similarly granted. The parties agree on appeal that the trial court’s reliance on the above-quoted maxim was misplaced.