Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

Many times when a client meets with their family law attorney in Fort Lauderdale, they question whether an asset is marital or non-marital. They also question their rights to the future income of marital and non-marital assets. In the case of Morenberg v. Morenberg, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the wife's entitlement to equitable distribution of royalties from labor which took place after she filed her Florida marital and family law case.

On August 20, 2008, the wife filed for divorce after being married for 46 years to the husband, an English professor. After the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, the husband began working on the fourth edition of one of his books. In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court ordered that the parties were to equally divide the royalties from two books that he wrote while he was an English professor, one of which he wrote after the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage.

At the trial, the husband testified that he began working on the second book in December 2008 or January 2009. He also testified that he finished the book one day before trial. On the otherhand, the wife testified that there was no post-dissolution of marriage labor related to the husband's second book. She believed that all of the husband's labor occurred prior to trial and the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.

The Husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage which was entered by the trial court. His main argument on appeal was that the trial court erred in requiring him to share the post-dissolution royalties with the wife since he earned after she filed for divorce.

In reversing the decision of the trial court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that any future royalties from the husband's book which were started, completed and submitted after the petition for dissolution of marriage are post-dissolution income and should be excluded from income that must be split with the wife.

During a trial, your Broward divorce attorney will ask the court to achieve an equitable distribution by dividing all assets acquired during the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them. A former spouse is not entitled to receive any financial benefits which accrue after the divorce. Based upon the clear language of Florida Statute 61.075, the date of filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage is generally the latest date for identifying marital assets.

Here, the royalties from the the book written during the marriage would be considered a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. New editions of the books which are written by the husband after the date of filing or post-dissolution are not marital assets subject to equitable distribution.

Fort Lauderdale divorce attorneys often explain to clients that their marital home may be sold by the court or agreement of the parties as part of the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. Often the marital home is the only asset owned by a divorcing couple and must be sold to divide the equity amongst the parties. Other times the parties cannot afford to maintain the home after their divorce is finalized and the marital home must be sold.

Out of the one million divorces per year, most cases require the sale of the marital residence. This can assist buyers in finding bargains. However, purchasing a home from a divorced couple can often be difficult. While one spouse may want to sell the home, the other spouse may frustrate the deal due to the fact that they are angry with their spouse or unwilling to leave the marital residence.

In order to avoid a problem when buying a home from a divorcing couple, a buyer should inquire if they are purchasing a home from a couple who has gone through a contested divorce. A buyer does not want to deal with any last minute problems such as a spouse who disappears in order to prevent real property from being sold. Buyers should speak to their real estate agent so that the necessary language to protect them can be insterted into any offer.

The Miami Herald is reporting that the Supreme Court of Florida has issued its opinion in Kaaa v. Kaaa that addresses whether and under what circumstances passive appreciation of a marital home that is a nonmarital asset is subject to equitable distribution.

For 27 years, the parties resided in a home that was purchased by the husband for $36,500 six months before the marriage. During the marriage, marital funds were utilized to pay the mortgage and improve the home. Although the home was refinanced during the marriage, the wife was never placed on the title or deed. At trial, the parties stipulated that the value of the home was $225,000 and the outstanding balance of the mortgage was $12,871.46. The trial court found that the home was nonmarital, that the mortgage balance had been reduced by $22,279 and the renovation to the carport increased the value of the home by $14,400. Accordingly, the trial court ruled that the the enhancement value of the home, $36,679, was subject to equitable distribution and ordered the husband to pay the wife $18,339.50. In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the former wife was not entitled to equitable distribution of the passive appreciation of the real property.

The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal and concluded that passive appreciation of a non-marital asset is considered a marital asset when marital funds or the efforts of either party contributed to the appreciation. A nonmarital asset which appreciates during the marriage, only due to inflation or market conditions, becomes in part a marital asset, if it has indebtedness which is reduced by marital funds. Improvements or expenditure of marital monies which results in the enhancenment of the value of a nonmarital asset is an asset subject to equitable distribution. Additionally, the nonowner spouse is also required to have made contributions to the property during the marriage by investing marital funds or the efforts of either party.

In determining whether a nonowner spouse is entitled to a portion of the passive appreciation, the court is required to perform a five part test. First, the court is to ascertain the fair market value of the property. Next, the court is required to determine whether there has been passive appreciation in the home's value. Third of all, the court must find that the passive appreciation is a marital asset under Florida Statute 61.075(2) by virtue of whether marital funds were used to pay the mortgage, whether their were contributions to the property by the nonowner spouse and the extent that these contributions affected the appreciation of the nonmarital asset. Fourth, the court is to then determine the value of the passive appreciation that accrued during the marriage. Finally, the court is to compute how the passive appreciation should be allocated by dividing the indebtedness at the time of the marriage by the value of the asset at the time of the marriage.

If you have property that is non-marital or believe that you may have an interest in your spouse's nonmarital property, you should consult with a divorce lawyer in Broward to discuss your rights.

Your Fort Lauderdale divorce lawyer should join you and your spouse's corporation as a party to your dissolution of marriage case if you are requesting the transfer of any of the corporate assets as part of the equitable distribution. In the event that the corporation is not a party to your action, the marital and family law court does not have jurisdiction to order that corporate assets to be transferred to you as part of the equitable distribution. In addition, if your spouse is ordered to transfer a corporate asset to you, you may not be able to have the corporation do so and then you would be left with no recourse. Another reason that a corporation owned by you and your spouse should be joined as a party is when both parties have access to the corporate books, checkbooks, bills and personal expenses are paid by the corporation

Joining a corporation is not necessary when a party is not requesting a claim against the corporate entity or an unequal distribution in any of the corporation's property. In the event that your divorce lawyer in Broward does not join you and your spouse's corporation, the Florida marital and family law judge can still prevent the disposal of corporate assets or corporate stock to a third party.

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.