Articles Posted in Equitable Distribution

Published on: | by

A home may count as a marital asset for divorce purposes even when the deed names only one spouse. That classification affects equitable distribution, but it does not necessarily make both former spouses owners of record. In a recent Florida decision, the court reversed a partition judgment that treated a marital-property label as proof of joint title. If you are resolving ownership of a home after divorce, you should consider both the judgment and the deed. A Miami equitable distribution attorney can help examine how each document affects the parties’ rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, one spouse purchased a home around the time of the 2006 marriage. The deed and mortgage named only that spouse, and the other spouse was never added to title. The parties later divorced. Their 2023 dissolution judgment classified the house as marital property, awarded sole possession to the titled spouse, and assigned that spouse sole responsibility for the mortgage. It did not direct a transfer of ownership or order an equalizing payment.

Allegedly, about six weeks after the divorce judgment, the other former spouse filed a separate partition action. She argued that the marital-property classification meant the parties jointly owned the house and that she could require its sale. The titled spouse opposed partition because she held no interest on the deed. The trial court concluded that the parties owned the property as tenants in common, ordered it sold, and directed an equal division of proceeds without credit for the titled spouse’s mortgage obligation. He appealed that partition judgment. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A mortgage payment can look routine during a marriage, yet become a six-figure issue when the marriage ends. When marital money reduces debt on one spouse’s nonmarital property, the resulting value can become a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. A recent Florida decision shows why a court must account for the entire principal reduction when an appellate mandate requires it. It also confirms that interest on an equalizing payment may depend on the equities after recalculation. If you are faced with disputes over property, marital funds, or equalizing payments, you should consult an experienced Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible to discuss how to protect your interests.

Case Setting 

Allegedly, during the marriage, the spouses used marital funds to reduce the note and mortgage on real property that remained a nonmarital asset of one spouse. The principal reduction totaled $355,674. In the original dissolution judgment, the trial court did not include that marital mortgage paydown within the equitable distribution scheme, prompting the former wife to appeal.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The financial consequences of divorce do not end when a marriage is dissolved. In many cases, months or even years pass before marital assets are finally distributed, leaving one spouse without the benefit of property to which they may ultimately be entitled. When that happens, an important question arises: should the spouse who was deprived of those assets be compensated for the delay? In a significant decision, the Florida Supreme Court answered that question by holding that trial courts have the discretion to award prejudgment interest as part of an equitable distribution award when doing so is necessary to achieve a fair result.

If you are facing a divorce involving substantial assets or contested property division, an experienced Miami family law attorney can help protect your financial future from the very beginning. Notably, Sandy T. Fox, P.A., represented the husband before the Florida Supreme Court in this landmark case, giving the firm firsthand experience with the legal principles that now govern equitable distribution disputes throughout Florida.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the parties’ marriage was dissolved after one spouse filed a petition for dissolution. Although the court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage relatively early in the litigation, it reserved jurisdiction to decide disputed issues involving equitable distribution, alimony, attorney’s fees, and costs. The financial issues remained pending for several years before the trial court entered a supplemental judgment resolving the distribution of the marital estate.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Financial rulings in divorce cases can reshape a party’s economic future long after the marriage ends, making precision and adherence to statutory standards essential. Disputes over equitable distribution, alimony, and child support often reveal how small legal missteps can lead to disproportionately large consequences. In a recent Florida decision, the court scrutinized a dissolution judgment that relied on improper classification dates and awarded financial relief inconsistent with the marital standard of living, ultimately requiring substantial portions of the judgment to be undone. If you are navigating a divorce involving significant financial issues or questioning whether a court’s ruling was legally sound, you should consult with a Miami family law attorney who can help you understand your rights and options before those errors become permanent.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the husband and wife were married for many years and enjoyed an upper-middle-class lifestyle, including living in large homes, traveling frequently, and maintaining financial stability. Over time, the marital relationship deteriorated, and the parties began living separate lives before filing any dissolution action.

It is alleged that after the separation, the parties filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Pinellas County. The trial court ultimately entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage and addressing equitable distribution, permanent periodic alimony, and retroactive child support. In its findings, the court focused heavily on the date it believed the marital relationship effectively ended, rather than the statutory classification date tied to the filing of the petition.

Continue reading ›

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 ›

Contact Information
19790 W Dixie Hwy #412
Miami, FL 33180
Toll Free: 800.596.0579Phone: 305.932.6542Fax: 305.932.6453

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Sandy T. Fox, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design