Articles Posted in Equitable Distribution

Published on: | by

In family law, property division often presents complex issues when unmarried parents or former partners jointly own real estate. When co-owners cannot agree on the sale or disposition of property, Florida law allows one party to seek partition through the courts. However, even when parties reach an agreement to sell the property privately, that arrangement must still comply with statutory requirements and judicial oversight. A recent decision from a Florida court demonstrates that when a trial court approves a private sale in a partition action, the final judgment must include a fixed and reasonable time frame for completion of the sale, subject to court approval. If the property is not sold within that time, the court must order a judicial sale in accordance with chapter 64 of the Florida Statutes. If you are involved in a dispute over jointly owned property, a Miami family law attorney can help ensure that your rights are protected during the partition process.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a paternity action that also involved issues of timesharing and jointly owned property. The defendant counterclaimed for partition of the real property that both parties owned together. The trial court conducted proceedings addressing both the parenting and property issues. Following those proceedings, the trial court entered a final judgment that established the parties’ timesharing arrangement and ordered partition of their jointly held property.

Allegedly, the trial court approved a plan for the parties to sell the property privately, rather than through a judicial sale. The record reflects that both parties voluntarily agreed to attempt a private sale and sought to avoid the costs and procedural requirements associated with a court-supervised sale. The judgment, however, did not include a specific time limit for the sale or provide for court involvement if the sale failed to occur within a reasonable period. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

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. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Divorce cases involving businesses, marital homes, and child support often hinge on the sufficiency of financial evidence. Florida trial courts are tasked with weighing competing affidavits, financial statements, and testimony to arrive at equitable outcomes. A recent opinion issued by a Florida court highlights how appellate courts defer to trial courts when the record demonstrates competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decisions. If you are involved in a Florida divorce proceeding, a Miami family law attorney can help protect your financial interests and ensure that proper valuations are used in your case.

Case Setting

It is reported that the husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage, and the wife filed a counter-petition. Following a contested trial, the trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage and addressing the division of marital property, child support, and related financial matters.

Allegedly, the wife challenged three key determinations in the final judgment. First, he disputed the trial court’s valuation of his business, a food company that both parties agreed was marital property. Second, he argued that the trial court erred in calculating his monthly income for purposes of child support and alimony. Third, he contended that the court improperly valued the marital home at an amount lower than his own assessment. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the equitable distribution of marital property must reflect fairness and be grounded in the evidence presented at trial. While courts may deviate from a 50/50 split when justified, the rationale must be based on statutory factors and competent proof. A recent Florida ruling highlights how both the allocation of assets and liabilities must align with the record. If you are involved in a divorce with complex financial issues, working with a Miami family law attorney can help ensure your interests are properly represented.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the parties purchased a twenty-acre property in 1992 with the initial goal of raising exotic parrots and later developing a bed-and-breakfast. After the husband relocated to Chicago in 1998, the wife remained in Florida and continued to maintain and operate the property and associated businesses. The husband ceased contributing financially in 2000 but benefited from shared tax filings and business deductions over the ensuing years.

It is alleged that the wife refinanced the property in her name to relieve the husband of liability and subsequently took out a home equity line of credit, from which she gave the husband $100,000. At trial, the court adopted the wife’s forensic accountant’s analysis, which apportioned 80% of the property’s $3.3 million value to the wife, based on her continued maintenance and investment. However, the trial court split the property-related liabilities equally and deducted hypothetical closing costs and depreciation recapture taxes from the property’s value. The husband appealed, challenging the unequal asset split, the equal liability allocation, and the reduction for speculative costs. He also contested the denial of attorney’s fees. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida divorce proceedings, courts are charged with distributing marital assets equitably and ensuring that each party receives fair treatment under the law. However, unequal distribution of assets, particularly when it is based on the destruction of nonmarital property, requires a clear factual basis. A recent Florida ruling demonstrates that a court’s decision to grant an equalizing payment must be supported by competent and substantial evidence, especially when the payment is rooted in claims of spoliation. If you are involved in a divorce involving complex asset division, it is essential to retain a Miami family law attorney who can help you protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the parties were married for ove a decade years. During the marriage, the husband amassed a substantial collection of memorabilia and personal items, many of which were classified as nonmarital property. After the parties separated, the former wife destroyed a number of these items, including vintage posters, books, photographs, sports memorabilia, and personal keepsakes. The trial court determined that this conduct warranted an unequal distribution of assets and awarded the former husband an equalizing payment of approximately $137,776.

It is alleged that the trial court justified this unequal distribution by allowing the former husband to retain the full value of his Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account, which exceeded that of the former wife’s account by a significant margin. The court found that this deviation from equal distribution was appropriate as a remedy for the loss of nonmarital assets caused by the former wife’s conduct. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the division of property in divorce cases must be supported by legally sufficient findings that justify any deviations from an equal division of marital liabilities and assets. This was emphasized in a recent Florida decision in which the court held that a trial court erred in assigning a marital loan solely to one spouse without adequate justification. If you are contemplating seeking a divorce, it is in your best interest to consult a Miami divorce attorney about how you can protect your financial interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed for divorce after a short-term marriage lasting under four years. Allegedly, four months before filing, she took out a $20,000 loan in her name alone, asserting that the funds were used to consolidate marital debt, cover pregnancy-related expenses, and repay a personal loan from a friend. She argued that these financial obligations were incurred during the marriage and should be treated as marital liabilities.

Reportedly, the husband denied knowledge of the loan and contended that he should not be responsible for any portion of it. He admitted, however, that he did not contribute to the payment of pregnancy-related expenses or inquire into how those obligations were covered. The trial court ruled in favor of the former husband, assigning full responsibility for the loan to the wife, citing the short duration of the marriage and her decision to obtain the loan in her name without informing her spouse. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, people who wish to end their marriage must abide by specific procedural rules when filing their petition for dissolution. Additionally, spouses responding to such petitions are bound by procedural rules as well. If a responding party declines to abide by such rules and fails to file an answer, the court may enter a default judgment against them. Further refusal to partake in the litigation process could ultimately result in a waiver of the right to pursue an appeal. This was illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the court found the husband’s failure to comply with procedural obligations or respond to discovery constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence on disputed financial issues. If you want to learn more about how you can protect your interests while ending your marraige, you should talk to  a Miami divorce lawyer.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the husband and wife were married, and the wife subsequently filed a petition for dissolution. The husband failed to respond to the petition, and the wife moved for a default judgment. The trial court ultimately granted the wife’s motion and issued a final judgment of dissolution, setting forth, among other things, the party’s financial rights and obligations.

It is reported that in issuing the judgment, the trial court found that the husband had waived his right to present evidence on certain disputed financial issues because he failed to respond to discovery requests, did not file a financial affidavit, and did not move to set aside the default judgment against him. The husband later appealed the trial court’s decision regarding financial matters. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

It is well established under Florida law that, absent a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, marital assets are subject to equitable distribution in divorce actions, while separate assets are not. It is not uncommon for a court to mischaracterize an asset, however, and order a separate asset to be divided among the parties. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion clarifying the classification of assets in divorce actions, in a matter in which it ultimately reversed the trial court’s determination. If you have questions about your rights with regard to equitable distribution, it is smart to speak to a Miami divorce lawyer.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is reported that the husband and wife were married but filed an action to dissolve their union. The trial court ultimately issued a final judgment, distributing the parties’ community assets. The husband then sought review of the final judgment issued by the trial court. One of the key issues in the appeal concerned the inclusion of one of the husband’s bank CD accounts in the equitable distribution schedule. The husband argued that this account was a nonmarital asset, as he had acquired it ten years before the marriage and maintained sole control over it throughout the marriage. The trial court, however, had classified the account as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.

Classification of Assets in Divorce Actions

On appeal, the court found that the sole issue raised by the husband that warranted review was the trial court’s classification of the CD account. The court explained that under Florida law, assets acquired by one party before marriage are generally considered nonmarital assets unless there is evidence of enhancement, commingling, or intent to gift the asset to the other spouse during the marriage. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Pursuant to Florida law, with few exceptions, any assets obtained during a marriage are considered marital property, while property obtained prior to the marriage remains separate. Applying this general rule can become complicated in divorce actions in which the parties mingle separate and marital assets. As discussed in a recent Florida divorce action, when marital assets are used to pay for a non-marital asset, any appreciation in the value of the property is a marital asset as well. If you have questions with regard to your rights in a dissolution proceeding, it would benefit you to consult a Miami divorce lawyer at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married in 2005. In 2015, the wife filed for dissolution of the marriage. The husband responded with a counterpetition. The trial court issued a final judgment of dissolution, which was subsequently appealed. In the initial appeal, the court determined that the husband’s Miami property was a non-marital asset and remanded the case to determine if there was any appreciation in its value during the marriage.

Reportedly, upon remand, the trial court found that the Miami property had depreciated during the marriage and concluded that the wife was not entitled to any share of the appreciation. The wife filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied pursuant to an order agreed upon by the parties. The wife then appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many divorce cases, one of the biggest issues is how marital property, including retirement income, should be divided. As such, many couples will develop marital settlement agreements defining their rights and obligations with regard to retirement. If the terms of such agreements are unclear, however, it could create challenges down the road, as demonstrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the court discussed the construction of marital settlement agreements. If you need help protecting your interests in a divorce proceeding, it is advisable to confer with a Miami divorce attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural Setting

It is reported that in 2001, the husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage from the wife. They subsequently entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) to resolve their marital issues, which was incorporated into the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage in 2002. Twenty years later, the wife moved to reopen the dissolution and enforce a provision of the MSA regarding the distribution of retirement benefits.

Allegedly, the disputed provision, labeled “Personal Property,” outlined the distribution of the husband’s retirement benefits from his 457 plan with Pinellas County, Florida, and the Florida Retirement System (FRS) pension. The wife argued that she was entitled to half of all FRS benefits received by the husband, including those accrued after the dissolution, based on the language of the MSA. The husband, however, contended that the provision only entitled the wife to half of the marital portion of the FRS benefits, which included benefits accrued during the marriage. The trial court determined that the language of the MSA was clear but interpreted it to mean that the wife was entitled to half of what the husband had at the time of the agreement. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›