What Happens When One Spouse Wastes Assets from the Marital Estate?

Equitable distribution is not necessarily equal distribution. In cases where one of the spouses intentionally dissipates (or wastes) marital assets, trial courts have the authority to favor one spouse over the other when dividing the marital estate. Not all dissipation of funds is considered legal dissipation, however. In this article, we’ll discuss a real family law case wherein one spouse was accused of intentionally dissipating assets from the marital estate.

Background of the case 

The marriage between the two parties ended in a dissolution action that involved a dispute over equitable distribution. During the marriage, the husband made several significant expenditures, which the wife claimed were improper and constituted dissipation. Therefore, the trial court found that the husband intentionally dissipated marital funds and gave the wife a greater share of the marital estate on that basis. The husband, displeased, appealed the decision, claiming that the evidence did not support a finding of intentional dissipation. 

The appeal

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed the ruling to determine what specifically constitutes dissipation under Florida law. It recognized that under Florida’s equitable distribution statute, the court can consider the “intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets” in distributing marital property. However, the court also recognized that this factor alone is not enough if there has not been an intentional dissipation of funds; nor will dissipation be found if there has only been bad financial judgment or if the funds were expended in ways the other party doesn’t like.

In this case, the court found that dissipation occurs where there has been an expenditure of marital funds for the benefit of one of the spouses, not related to the marriage, during a time of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. There must be competent and substantial evidence to prove the dissipation of funds was both intentional and improper. In this case, although the husband’s spending may have been substantial, there was not sufficient proof that the funds were expended with the intent to deprive the wife of her portion of the marital assets or during the breakdown of the marriage. Accordingly, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the unequal distribution award and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Key takeaways 

This case is useful when considering dissipation cases in Florida actions. Some key takeaways include:

• Not all spending, including considerable spending, is considered dissipation under Florida law. The act must be done to intentionally deprive the other spouse of their rightful share of the marital estate.
• The timing of the dissipation is an important element. The dissipation must have occurred at a time when the marriage was deteriorating.
• Evidence is critical. Trial courts must find competent evidence to order an unequal distribution of marital assets on the basis of dissipation.

Talk to a Tampa, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today 

Westchase Law, P.A., represents the interests of Tampa residents who are planning to 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/591480f5add7b0493447bf4f