Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
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.
It is alleged that the trial court valued the marital assets as of the date the dissolution petition was filed. During the equitable distribution proceedings, the former wife requested prejudgment interest on her share of the marital assets from the date the petition was filed until the assets were ultimately distributed. The trial court denied that request, concluding that it would be inequitable to require the former husband to pay prejudgment interest because much of the delay resulted from circumstances beyond his control, including disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reportedly, the former wife appealed several aspects of the supplemental judgment, including the denial of prejudgment interest. The district court concluded that the trial court’s stated reason for denying interest lacked evidentiary support and conflicted with the purpose of prejudgment interest. Because another district court had previously concluded that prejudgment interest could never be awarded in equitable distribution cases, the conflict ultimately reached the Florida Supreme Court.
Florida Supreme Court Recognizes Trial Courts’ Discretion to Award Prejudgment Interest
On review, the Florida Supreme Court considered whether Florida’s equitable distribution statute authorizes trial courts to award prejudgment interest as part of an equitable distribution award. The court examined the statutory language governing equitable distribution and emphasized that dissolution proceedings are fundamentally equitable in nature. It noted that the statute expressly authorizes courts to employ remedies necessary to achieve equity between the parties rather than limiting judges solely to the remedies specifically identified in the statute.
The court rejected the argument that the Legislature prohibited prejudgment interest simply because the statute expressly references postjudgment interest in one limited circumstance. Instead, the court concluded that the statute’s broad grant of equitable authority permits trial courts to consider prejudgment interest when doing so will help accomplish a fair division of marital property. The court also explained that prejudgment interest is designed to make a party whole and therefore serves an equitable purpose consistent with Florida’s dissolution laws.
Importantly, the court emphasized that prejudgment interest is not available as a matter of right. Rather, trial judges retain broad discretion to determine whether the facts of a particular case justify such an award. For example, prejudgment interest may be appropriate when one spouse has been deprived of meaningful access to valuable marital assets during prolonged litigation. Even then, the trial court must evaluate whether awarding interest is the most equitable remedy under the circumstances before exercising its discretion.
Because the Florida Supreme Court concluded that trial courts possess discretionary authority to award prejudgment interest in equitable distribution cases, it approved the district court’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. In doing so, the Court resolved conflicting appellate decisions and established a statewide rule that will guide Florida courts in future divorce cases involving delayed distribution of marital assets.
Consult a Skilled Miami Family Law Divorce Attorney
If you are involved in a divorce involving significant marital property or complex equitable distribution issues, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney. The dedicated Miami divorce attorneys at Sandy T. Fox, P.A., located in Miami, Florida, can evaluate your case, protect your financial interests, and advocate for an equitable outcome throughout the litigation process. Contact the firm through our online form or call 786-453-0794 to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.