of assets because the parties could have otherwise rented that residence to obtain additional income. We agree with the trial court that the Husband’s decision to expend marital funds solely for the purpose of providing airfare to and from Massachusetts for himself and his paramour might be considered dissipation of marital assets. The evidence shows that these expenditures totaled $739, and the trial court could properly account for this sum as a “dissipated asset.” However, the other two components of the trial court’s dissipation award do not constitute dissipation as defined. Concerning the loan to the Husband’s paramour, the Husband’s act of lending his paramour $987 would usually be considered dissipation. See, e.g., Matti v. Matti, 647 So.2d 168, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). However, the undisputed evidence in this case
holding trial court had no authority to award portion of the marital property to wifes children from another marriage even though money they received by way of social security benefits were commingled with the marital estate and used in part for the aequisition of marital property holding that the trial court erred in finding that marital property was the former wifes separate property based on a nonseparation agreement in which the former husband purported to relinquish any interest in the marital property holding that transfer of marital assets to the wifes paramour constituted dissipation holding trial court did not abuse discretion in setting aside inheritance exclusively to wife where it was kept in wifes name separate from husband and husband did nothing to contribute to the accumulation of the funds which were not treated as marital property or commingled with other marital assets holding that assets acquired subsequent to separation are not considered marital property absent evidence that spouse used marital property to obtain them