Under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, the distribution of marital assets should be equal unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution. One of the factors a court will consider when determining whether to order an unequal distribution is “the intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.” So, what is intentional dissipation of marital assets?
A very recent case tells us what it is not considered dissipation: Earlier this month, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the trial court’s final judgment which found the Former Wife had intentionally dissipated marital assets due to her transfer of $5,000 to her daughter from another relationship for the purchase of 376.506 shares of Publix stock. The trial court ordered the Former Wife’s share of the marital portion of Former Husband’s Publix stock be reduced by 376.506 shares. On appeal, the Former Wife argued that the trial court erred in finding intentional dissipation because there was no evidence of intentional misconduct. The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed with the Former Wife, finding the record contained no evidence to support a finding of dissipation and directing the trial court to order a fifty-fifty division of the marital shares of the Publix stock.
Case law also makes it clear that, without evidence of misconduct, a party’s use of an asset out of necessity and to pay reasonable living expenses is not dissipation justifying an award of a depleted marital asset to a party. Florida courts have also explained that mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a way in which the other spouse disapproves generally does not provide a basis for an unequal distribution of martial assets.
The courts have found misconduct when a spouse intentionally dissipates a marital asset for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage. One such case is Niederkohr v. Kuselias, 391 So.3d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In this case, the Former Husband had acquired a large settlement of which the Former Wife spent over $100,000 on cosmetic procedures by a dermatologist, over $7000 on a new dog she apparently co-owned with her new boyfriend, the mortgage on the marital home, utilities, homeowners’ association (hoa) fees, car insurance, and the parties’ health insurance. The trial court determined the Former Wife had dissipated the settlement funds and attributed to her the full amount she had spent in the equitable distribution, requiring her to make an equalizing payment to the Former Husband. The Fifth DCA agreed with the trial court that the Former Wife had intentionally dissipated the settlement funds, except for the amounts she spent on the mortgage, utilities, HOA fees, car insurance, and health insurance, because these expenditures benefited both parties and were related to the marriage.
If you’re concerned your spouse is dissipating marital assets, contact one of our experienced Family Law attorneys at the Rice Law Firm for an assessment of your unique circumstances.