When a marriage ends, the division of property and financial obligations between spouses can be one of the most contested aspects of the case. Florida law requires trial courts to follow statutory procedures when determining equitable distribution and alimony, including specific factual findings to support their conclusions. A recent Florida decision demonstrates that when trial courts fail to make these required findings, appellate courts will reverse and remand for correction. If you are facing a divorce in Florida, a Miami family law attorney can help ensure that all financial determinations in your case are fair, transparent, and consistent with the law.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is reported that the defendant filed for dissolution of marriage in January 2019. The marriage began in 2010. During the litigation, the parties resolved several issues by agreement but left key financial matters for trial, including the valuation of the marital home, the award of alimony, and the defendant’s alleged failure to make mortgage payments as ordered by the court. A bench trial took place in April 2022 to address these remaining issues.
Allegedly, the marital home was valued by an independent appraiser at $338,000 as of the filing date and $475,000 as of the trial date. The defendant had made mortgage payments of $1,825 per month until December 2020, nearly two years after filing for divorce. The plaintiff made certain expenditures on the home’s maintenance and repairs, but a portion of those costs related to vehicle repairs rather than the residence itself. At the time of trial, the mortgage principal was approximately $267,000, with an additional $28,000 in arrearages resulting from missed payments.
It is alleged that the trial court selected different valuation dates for the property and the mortgage. The home was valued as of the filing date, while the mortgage was valued as of the trial date. The court awarded the home to the plaintiff, assigned her responsibility for the mortgage, and concluded that the equity in the home was $70,796. The court then split that equity equally, finding that the plaintiff owed the defendant $35,398. The court also found that the plaintiff earned about $2,800 per month and the defendant approximately $6,300, and awarded the plaintiff $1,500 per month in retroactive durational alimony.
Reportedly, the defendant moved for rehearing, challenging both the valuation of the marital home and the alimony award. When the trial court declined to alter its ruling, the defendant appealed, arguing that the court’s valuation dates and alimony findings were inconsistent with Florida law.
Errors in Property Valuation and Distribution
On appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s equitable-distribution scheme for abuse of discretion, emphasizing that such discretion is limited by statutory requirements. Under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, trial courts must make specific factual findings supported by competent evidence when distributing marital assets. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by using the filing date to value the marital home while using the trial date to value the mortgage.
Florida precedent establishes that when marital property appreciates passively, the proper valuation date is generally the date of the final hearing. However, if the increase in value results from the efforts of one spouse alone, the date of separation may be appropriate. In this case, the record showed that both spouses contributed to maintaining the property, as the defendant continued to make mortgage payments for nearly two years after the separation. Because the increase in value was not solely due to the plaintiff’s efforts, the court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in valuing the property as of the filing date.
Additionally, the appellate court found that the trial court failed to award the defendant credit for post-separation payments. While courts have discretion to determine whether to award such credits, the failure to make findings explaining the rationale for denying them requires reversal. The appellate court held that the trial court’s lack of findings justified remand for a new equitable-distribution determination.
Errors in the Alimony Award
The court also found that the trial court erred in awarding alimony without making necessary factual findings about the plaintiff’s need and the defendant’s ability to pay. Section 61.08(2), Florida Statutes, requires specific findings of both elements before awarding alimony. The trial court’s order included no findings about the plaintiff’s expenses or demonstrated need, making appellate review impossible. The court compared this case to prior decisions in which alimony awards were reversed for similar omissions, emphasizing that without quantifying need, the award lacked a lawful foundation.
Thus, the court reversed the alimony award and remanded for the trial court to make the appropriate findings and reconsider the evidence. It also directed the trial court to explain how it calculated the defendant’s income, as the figure used did not precisely match any evidence in the record.
Meet with a Skilled Florida Divorce Attorney
If you are involved in a divorce or need to challenge a judgment that lacks sufficient findings, experienced legal counsel can help protect your rights. At The Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., our Miami divorce attorneys represent clients throughout South Florida in complex family law matters. Call us at 800-596-0579 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.