Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
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.
Unequal Asset Division in Florida Divorce Cases
On appeal, the court affirmed the 80/20 split of the property’s value, distinguishing the case from Bobb v. Bobb, where unequal distribution based solely on passive appreciation was reversed. Here, the court found that the wife had actively maintained and enhanced the property’s value through ongoing financial and operational contributions. The court concluded that her efforts justified an unequal distribution under Florida Statutes section 61.075(1).
However, the court found that assigning 50% of the liabilities to the husband lacked evidentiary support. The parties had agreed that the husband would not bear liability for the property, and the wife had obtained the financing solely in her name. Accordingly, the court remanded the case with instructions to apply the 80/20 distribution to the liabilities as well.
The court also held that while depreciation-related tax liabilities could be considered despite no imminent sale, closing costs should not have been deducted in the absence of a planned transaction. The court explained that although the judgment included a provision requiring sale if the wife failed to make an equalizing payment, that contingency did not justify a present reduction for closing expenses.
Finally, the court upheld the denial of attorney’s fees to the husband. Given that his anticipated distribution was more than sufficient to cover his $15,000 legal bill, the court found no abuse of discretion in concluding he had the ability to pay his own fees.
Consult a Knowledgeable Miami Divorce Lawyer for Strategic Representation
In Florida divorces, courts must make equitable, evidence-based decisions regarding the division of assets and debts. If you are navigating a divorce with high-value or complex property issues, you need legal counsel with financial acumen and litigation experience. At The Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., our seasoned Miami family law attorneys are committed to protecting your rights and achieving a fair outcome. Call us at 800-596-0579 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.