When Fair Does Not Mean Equal: Florida’s Equitable Distribution Rules

A lot of folks going through divorce assume that the marital estate is split in half between the parties. While that’s usually the case, sometimes, the court sees fit to award more of the marital estate to one party than the other. A recent Third District Court of Appeal decision involves a case in which the marital estate was not divided equally/ In this article, we’ll review that case and how courts make the decision to award more of the marital estate to one party than the other. 

Background of the case 

In the aforementioned case, the parties’ divorce involves major disputes over personal property and alleged misconduct after separation. According to the husband, his collection of memorabilia was his own personal property and not part of the marital estate. After the parties separated and when their divorce was occurring, the former wife threw out her husband’s memorabilia collection.

During their divorce trial, the court found that the former wife’s actions were significant. It relied on Florida’s equitable distribution statute. This statute allows courts to consider intentional misconduct. So, in this case, the court required the wife to make an equalizing payment to the husband as a means of compensating him for the destroyed memorabilia.

The court saw fit to divide the marital estate unevenly. The court used its discretion to shift more assets to the husband’s way. The destruction of the husband’s personal property justified an unequal distribution of the marital estate.  

The appeal

The former wife appealed. In her appeal, she did not dispute that the trial court can consider the destruction of the husband’s property when ruling on equitable distribution. Instead, she contested how exactly the trial court came up with the equitable distribution.

In this case, the Third District Court of Appeal agreed in part with the wife. The court agreed that the trial court could employ equitable distribution to divide the spouses’ assets. When one spouse intentionally destroys or dissipates the marital estate of property, the court will generally favor the other spouse. The wife’s conduct dissipated the marital estate of assets and she was thus punished by the court.

The issue in this case was appraising the collection. The appellate court ruled that the trial court did not use competent evidence to support the specific dollar amount awarded to the husband. In other words, while the court found that equitable distribution was appropriate, it did not rely on evidence to come up with the exact dollar amount.

Since there was an evidentiary gap, the appellate court reversed the award and sent the case back to the trial court so that it could appraise the collection and award the husband in kind. 

Contact a Tampa, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, represents the interests of Tampa residents who are going through divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2025/3d24-0431.html