Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

A Florida divorce judgment is usually non-modifiable as it relates to equitable distribution. In Rhoulhac v. Francois, 4D19-1832 (Fla. 4th DCA April 22, 2020), the former wife filed a petition to recover her interest in the marital home, and the trial court dismissed her petition with prejudice, so she appealed.

At the time of the parties’ divorce the court ruled the former wife would remain in the marital home until the parties’ youngest child turned 18. She would be responsible for the mortgage payments (the mortgage was only in the former husband’s name, and the court referred to the home as “marital”) and she would be reimbursed for half the payments made to reduce the mortgage principal. When she moved out of the marital home, the former wife filed her petition to recover her interest in the home. The former husband then transferred the home by quitclaim deed to his brother without paying the former wife her share of the home. The deed transferring the property included the brother’s wife although the brother’s wife had no interest to convey in the home. The former wife sought half the value of the home plus a reimbursement of her one-half of the mortgage payments made during her stay in the home.

The trial court denied the former wife’s motion, holding she only had an interest in getting reimbursed, but not in the property itself. It also denied her oral motion to amend her petition to raise an ambiguity in the final judgment as to her interest in the property. Apparently believing it had no jurisdiction to reconsider the equitable distribution scheme or to modify it, the trial court denied the former wife’s requests for relief. The former wife appealed.

The appellate court reversed, holding “[H]ere, the final judgment neither valued the marital home under section 61.075, nor determined how the proceeds from the marital home were to be distributed once the home was sold under section 61.077, including consideration of the former wife having lived in the marital home until the parties' youngest child turned eighteen. Thus, we must remand for the circuit court to permit the former wife to amend her supplemental petition to allege the final judgment's ambiguity as to the marital home's disposition, so the circuit court may value the marital home under section 61.075(3) and apply the section 61.077 factors to determine whether the former wife was entitled to any credits or set-offs upon the marital home's sale. We disagree with the circuit court's statements that equitable distribution is non-modifiable, especially when the time periods to challenge the final judgment by motion for rehearing or appeal had long expired. As stated above, the circuit court which entered the final judgment ‘retain[ed] jurisdiction to enforce and modify and clarify the terms of th[e] Judgment.’ Even without the reservation of jurisdiction, ‘[w]here terms of a final judgment are ambiguous as applied to facts developing after the judgment, a court may clarify what is implicit in the judgment, and enforce the judgment. A clarification seeks to make a judgment clearer and more precise, as opposed to a modification, which seeks to change the status quo and alter the rights and obligations of the parties.’ [citations omitted] Further, contrary to the circuit court's concern, reconsideration of all the evidence presented to the predecessor judge in the 2009 trial is not required. Rather, the circuit court may accept the predecessor circuit court's findings not related to the marital home, and merely reopen the evidence as to facts related to the marital home.”

Sometimes a final judgment may not be “final” and may require the parties to return to court to resolve ambiguities. If you find yourself in this position, schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce attorney to obtain an analysis of your case.