Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

If you file for divorce in Broward, your attorney may suggest that you retain a forensic accountant to value the marital business. However, in these uncertain economic times the values of marital assets are volatile and may fluctuate after trial and before the marital and family court in Florida enters the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In the case of Mistretta v. Mistretta, the Miami Herald is reporting that First District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in revisiting the equitable distribution due to the economic recession

In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on August 25, 2008, the trial court distributed the marital business to the Husband, assigned a date of valuation of October 31, 2007 and ordered the Husband to make a one time cash equalization payment of $845,000 to the Wife. The Husband requested a new trial and valuation of the business relying upon the economic recession that began in December, 2007 as "newly discovered evidence." The trial court granted the Husband's motion.

Rehearing or a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence is permitted when it appears that the evidence will possibly change the result if a new trial is granted, the evidence has been discovered since trial, the evidence could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence, the evidence is material to the issue and the evidence is not just cumulative or impeaching. The alleged "newly discovered evidence" cannot simply show some change in circumstance since the trial.

Here, the "newly discovered evidence", evidence of an economic recession that began in December, 2007 and operating results thereafter, proves a change in circumstances after the date of valuation and relates to events that took place after trial. In reversing the decision of the Florida divorce court, the First District Court of Appeal held that a cloudy crystal ball is no basis for a new trial. The Court reasoned that when the way that the future unfolds is different than business appraisers assume cannot be a basis for a new trial on the value of a business if trials on such issues are ever to yield final adjudications.

When you hire your Broward divorce lawyer, you will most likely discuss your house, your furnishings, alimony, child support and custody and time-sharing with your children. During a Fort Lauderdale divorce, everything can become contentious. A common questioned asked to marital and family law attorneys in Fort Lauderdale relates to which spouse will ultimately get custody of the dog or cat.

In Miami-Dade and Broward, who gets the pet is a common point of contention in the office of divorce attorneys and mediators, and even sometimes in the courtroom. Most spouses manage to work out pet arrangements without the need of the Florida marital and family law judge. In Florida, judges have to follow the law related to pets. The law and case precedent state that animals are property, and that means that neither party can have custody, time-sharing, visitation or shared parental responsibility with the dog or cat. Insofar as a pet is property, it is subject to equitable distribution like all of your other assets

Just like your pension, furniture and car, pets are considered personal property, and legally, it can only be awarded to one person. If a pet is acquired during the marriage and is not a gift to one party from another person outside of the marriage, it is an asset subject to equitable distribution. In awarding the pet to one of the parties, the court will look at who spent time with the pet, fed it, cared for it, and had the closest bond with it.

Your Fort Lauderdale divorce lawyer will try to keep you and your spouse from going to court about your pet. Many couples are able to work out a private or mediated agreement regarding their pet. Some couples will develop a time-sharing schedule and custody arrangement so that they can both continue to enjoy their pet. Others have included a provision that required their dog to have puppies. While divorce lawyers in Miami-Dade and Broward are divided over the enforceability of such arrangements and contracts, almost all agree that a resolution outside of the courtroom is the most prudent decision for all couples.

A Florida woman is seeking custody of her X-rated photographs as part of her divorce. The Wife is suing her husband and has accused him of distributing the photographs on the internet and using them in online sex chat rooms. A Florida divorce attorney believes that the photographs belong to the Husband and Wife. Fort Lauderdale marital and family law attorneys would agree that this is a common issue amongst couples who file for divorce in the Broward and Miami-Dade divorce court. In order to prevent embarrassment, one spouse generally will have to surrender other property to be awarded the photographs as part of the equitable distribution of assets during a divorce. The parties divorce case is currently pending in a Florida divorce court.

During your divorce in Broward County, the Florida marital and family law judge will divide you and your spouses assets and liabilities. Many of the marital liabilities and debts incurred during a marriage are jointly held. This means that you and your spouse are both equally liable for payment and non-payment of joint debt incurred during the marriage. After your Fort Lauderdale divorce lawyer negotiates who will be responsible for all of the marital debt, the divorce judge will eventually approve the marital settlement agreement that deals with the equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities.

The court does not generally order the lender or creditor to recognize payment responsibilities during a divorce. Even thought the court can make one spouse responsible for the payment of a debt, the creditor can come after the other spouse and negatively impact his or her credit if he or she has responsibility for the liability with the creditor.

The only way to dispose of your joint marital liabilities is to dispose of the joint debts. This may mean selling the marital residence or a car to protect your credit from being negatively impacted. Another alternative is to refinance the debt into you or your spouses name so that the joint debt will become an individual debt.

It is also in your best interest to pay off your credit card debt. Alternatively, you can transfer the debt to a card of the party who is responsible for the debt and close the joint credit card. This is an option to really protect your credit during a divorce.

Both spouses will benefit if they can consider their credit during a divorce. Once you are divorced, you will need good credit to obtain new loans, new insurance and even new employment.

When you meet with your Fort Lauderdale marital and family law attorney, you will be asked about you and your spouses assets and liabilities as part of your divorce case. Your Fort Lauderdale divorce lawyer will explain to you the difference between marital and non-marital assets and liabilities as set forth in Florida Statute 61.075. One way that the Broward County divorce judge can award you an interest in the enhancement value of a non-marital asset for equitable distribution purposes is as a result of marital efforts or marital funds that result in an increase in value of a non-marital asset.

In Shinitzky v. Shnitzky, the former wife appealed the trial court's order which held that funds recovered in a lawsuit for damages arising from the loss of a non-marital asset were a non-marital asset. Before the marriage, the Former Husband sold his business for $8 million. The parties did not dispute that the $8 million from the sale of the Former Husband's business was non-marital. After the marriage, the Former Husband placed the $8 million into a brokerage account. The broker absconded with the money. The parties worked together to recover the funds for two years during the marriage. The Former Husband then moved out of the house and pursued the lawsuit on his own before recovering $5.6 million and an uncollectible judgment against the broker.

The Former Wife argued that the funds received from the lawsuit were marital since they were acquired during the marriage. While the Former Husband agreed that if marital labor or funds had been used to pursue the lawsuit and that if the expenditure of marital effort or funds had increased the value of the recovery that the increase could be considered marital, he argued that none of the recovery was marital since marital funds or efforts did not increase the value of the $8 million non-marital asset.

The trial court found that the asset was derived from a lawsuit concerning a non-marital asset that had not increased in value during the marriage. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court reasoned that the evidence presented at trial did not establish that marital labor or funds enhanced the value of the asset.

To determine whether a portion of the lawsuit recovery is a marital enhancement resulting from the expenditure of marital efforts or funds, the initial value of the lawsuit must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Here, the only evidence of the value of the lawsuit was that the account had been worth $8 million before the theft and that the Former Husband settled the lawsuit for $5.6 million.

In Vigo v. Vigo, the appellate court affirmed Florida divorce court Judge Maxine Cohen Lando's decision to award the wife $250,000 in lump sum alimony. The wife presented sufficient evidence to the divorce court located south of Fort Lauderdale that the husband intended to gift a condominium to her. Therefore, the Florida marital and family law court appropriately awarded her a $250,000.00 lump sum alimony award that represented a one-half interest in the couple's condominium located south of Broward County.

The husband purchased the condominium during the marriage with non-marital funds. He also paid the monthly expenses related to the condominium including mortgage payments, condominium association fees and insurance with non-marital funds. Because the wife claimed that he intended to gift to her a one-half interest in the condo, she had to prove (1) the Husband's donative intent, (2) his delivery of or her possession of the gift, and (3) the Husband's surrender of dominion and control of the gift.

The wife met this burden. The evidence presented at trial was that the husband purchased the condominium at the wife's request so that she could be closer to her grandchild; the wife attended the closing and signed the mortgage; the husband told the wife he purchased the condo for both of them to use; both are named on the homeowner's insurance policy; both of their names are on sales receipts for furniture and accessories used to furnish the condo; and finally, the condo became their marital residence which the wife assisted in maintaining for the parties.

Even though the husband used non-marital funds to purchase the condominium, the wife provided sufficient evidence that he intended to divest himself of all dominion and control over a one-half interest, and furthermore, that she accepted his gift. Therefore, the trial court's decision to award the wife $250,000.00 to equalize the equitable distribution of the marital assets was affirmed.

Conceptually, the answer is yes because a marriage in Broward County is considered a partnership. The Fort Lauderdale Family Court divides the couple's assets based on the idea that when a couple gets married they make decisions together. The partnership decides together who will work and who will run the home. Therefore, when the couple seeks dissolution in the Broward County Family Court, the judge will divide equitably the parties marital assets and the debts.

Here is a simple illustration of how the court views the marriage as a partnership. If the partnership decides together that the Wife will work and the Husband will stay at home, then all of the money the Wife makes is considered in furtherance of the partnership. The Husband is entitled to half of these marital funds because he has stayed in the home which consequentially has enabled the Wife to enter the workforce and make money. So, while the Wife is said to be supporting the Husband and the marriage monetarily, the Husband is said to be supporting the Wife and the marriage physically.

When the partnership dissolves the court begins with a presumption that the marital property should be divided equally between the parties. Even so, each divorce is unique, and therefore a 50/50 split is not always the best approach for the individual parties. The court considers four factors in deciding how to equitably distribute the marital property: (1) the contribution of each spouse to that property; (2) the value of the property set apart to each other; (3) the duration of the marriage; and (4) the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time of divorce.