When Unequal Distribution Goes Too Far in a Florida Divorce

A lot of folks assume that Florida divorces always end up with marital assets and debts being split between the spouses. While that is the default position of the Florida courts, it doesn’t necessarily have to work out that way. The courts can sometimes see fit to favor one litigant with a larger share of the marital estate than the other. This often happens when there are large income gaps between the spouses. However, the law requires clear and specific findings before the court can unevenly divide the marital estate. In this article, the Tampa, FL, divorce lawyers at Westchase Law, P.A., will discuss a Florida appellate case in which marital assets were divided unevenly.

Background of the case

In this case, the husband and wife were dissolving their marriage and needed the court to decide who should get what from the marital estate. In addition to assets, the couple had accumulated substantial debt during their marriage. During their trial, the trial court awarded an unequal distribution by assigning a substantial portion of the marital debt to the husband.

The court reasoned that the husband had a greater earning capacity and greater ability to manage the debts. Florida’s equitable distribution statute allows the courts to consider the economic circumstances of both spouses. However, the final judgment was lacking that information. In other words, the court never explained why it allocated the majority of the marital debt to the husband.

As a result of the decision, the husband was left with considerable debt, so he proceeded to appeal the verdict.

The appeal

In this case, the husband argued that the unequal distribution of marital debt was improper and that the trial court abused its discretion when assigning him the lion’s share of the couple’s debts. The appeals court emphasized a key principle under Florida law: equitable distribution must begin with the assumption that marital assets and debts should be divided equally.

This is extremely important. Trial courts can deviate from this rule, but they must do so based on specific factors outlined in the equitable distribution statute. In this case, the appellate court found no such reasoning. Instead, the trial court relied heavily on the husband’s greater earning capacity to assign the debts to him.

Since the final judgment lacked factual explanations and did not adequately apply the statute, the decision was overturned and remanded back to the trial court for review.

Key takeaways 

This is an important case for anyone facing divorce in Florida. It illustrates how unequal distribution is the exception and not the rule. Courts can only deviate when there are statutory factors that allow them to. Greater earning capacity alone is not enough. They matter, but they must be evaluated alongside a full list of statutory factors. That never happened in this case. Hence, why the appeal was successful. 

Talk to a Tampa, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today 

Westchase Law, P.A., represents the interests of Tampa residents during their divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

casemine.com/judgement/us/5c0816a3342cca1de23140a0