Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

In Farid v. Rabbath, 1D17-4173 (Fla. 1st DCA May 16, 2019), the former husband took issue with the trial court’s decision to modify the equitable distribution provisions of the parties’ final judgment. Specifically, after both parties were found in contempt of the order to pay each other certain sums, the court re-worked their property settlement agreement to achieve what it deemed an equitable result.

According to the parties’ final judgment, the former husband owed the former wife approximately $111,000 as her share of equitable distribution. The trial court found the former husband was to receive property from Kuwait valued at $100,000. The former husband was ordered to pay the former wife monthly installments of over $2,000 until he fully paid her share of equitable distribution.

The former wife filed a motion for contempt alleging the former husband had failed to pay the installments. The former husband also filed a motion for contempt alleging the former wife failed to deliver to him the $100,000 property shipped from Kuwait. After a hearing, the court found both parties in contempt and ordered the former wife to keep the $100,000, crediting the former husband this amount toward the amount he owed the former wife and ordering him to pay the balance plus interest.

The former wife appealed arguing it was improper for the trial court to revise equitable distribution provisions of their final judgment. The appellate court agreed with her, holding “Here, the parties' interest in the property was set when the final judgment was entered—the former wife had a property interest in the $111,357.80 equalization payment; and the former husband had a property interest in the personal property shipped from Kuwait. Thus, unless there was a reservation of jurisdiction over the distribution of property by the final judgment of dissolution, the final judgment establishing property rights could not be modified. The final judgment states, "This Court reserves jurisdiction to modify and enforce terms [of] this final judgment . . . . ‘However, a "blanket reservation of jurisdiction for any modification of the final judgment is erroneous as a matter of law and legally unnecessary.’ Thus, because the reservation of rights here is nothing more than a blanket reservation of jurisdiction, it fails to provide the lower court the jurisdiction needed to modify the final judgment. Therefore, the trial court erred when it ‘shuffled’ the property interests previously determined in the final judgment when neither party had properly plead for modification, and we reverse this portion of the order on appeal.”

Equitable distribution provisions are generally non-modifiable. If you want advice on whether or not your Florida final judgment of divorce is modifiable, schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer.