Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
When parents separate, financial support for children and the division of family property can become some of the most emotionally charged and fiercely contested issues in a divorce. Courts are tasked not only with ensuring that children receive adequate financial support but also with fairly distributing the assets accumulated during a marriage, including items that carry significant sentimental value. A recent Florida decision illustrates how errors in addressing retroactive child support and marital property can require reversal and further proceedings, even after a final judgment has been entered. If you are involved in a divorce or custody dispute and have questions about child support, equitable distribution, or your parental rights, you should speak with a Miami family law attorney as soon as possible to protect your interests.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the parties were married in 2011 and shared one minor child. The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and the wife responded with a counterpetition seeking related relief.
It is alleged that the parties separated and that the minor child primarily resided with the wife throughout most of the separation period. During the litigation, the wife sought retroactive child support and presented evidence concerning the child’s needs and the husband’s financial circumstances.
Reportedly, the wife retained a forensic accountant who reviewed financial records, evaluated the parties’ incomes, and calculated an amount of retroactive child support. The accountant also testified regarding the husband’s ability to pay support during the separation period.
It is reported that another significant dispute involved family photographs and videos maintained on hard drives in the husband’s possession. The issue became increasingly contentious, and the trial court entered an order requiring the husband to provide certain photographs to the wife before a memorial service for her recently deceased mother.
Allegedly, after holding a final hearing, the trial court entered judgment dissolving the marriage. The judgment declined to award retroactive child support and excluded the family photographs and videos from the equitable distribution scheme. The wife appealed those rulings.
Child Support and Marital Property Rights
On appeal, the court first considered whether the trial court properly denied the wife’s request for retroactive child support. The court noted that Florida law generally permits retroactive child support when evidence demonstrates both a need for support and an ability to pay.
The court closely examined the record and determined that the trial court’s stated rationale was unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. The wife introduced testimony from a forensic accountant regarding the child’s needs and the husband’s financial ability to contribute support. The husband also acknowledged that he had not consistently paid child support during much of the separation period while the child primarily resided with the wife.
The court concluded that competent and substantial evidence supported an award of retroactive child support. Because the record demonstrated both the need and the ability to pay, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request. The court therefore reversed that portion of the judgment and directed the trial court to determine an appropriate retroactive support award on remand.
The court next addressed the treatment of the family photographs and videos. Although these items did not carry the same economic value as traditional marital assets, the court emphasized that property acquired during the marriage may still qualify as a marital asset even when its significance is primarily sentimental.
The court found that the parties had actively litigated the issue throughout the proceedings and that the photographs and videos represented shared memories created during the marriage. As a result, they constituted marital assets subject to equitable distribution. Because the parties had not reached an agreement regarding those materials, the trial court was required to make specific findings concerning their distribution.
The court ultimately held that the trial court erred by failing to identify and distribute the photographs and videos as part of the equitable distribution scheme. The matter was remanded for further proceedings regarding both the support award and the distribution of the family keepsakes.
Speak with a Dedicated Miami Family Law Attorney Today
If you are facing a family law dispute involving child support, custody, or marital property, you should consult an attorney. The experienced Miami divorce attorneys of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., located in Miami, Florida, can evaluate your case and help you pursue a favorable outcome. You can contact the firm through its online form or by calling 786-453-0794 to discuss your situation.