Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

What is the test for determining if a marital asset has been dissipated? Dissipation refers to a spouse’s intentional waste or depletion of a marital asset such as a bank account. If a spouse empties a bank account close to divorce and spends the money on frivolous items that do not benefit the marital household, this could be considered dissipation. This was an issue in the case Pflanz v. Pflanz, 1D20-2786 (Fla. 1st DCA December 15, 2021).

At the time of the parties’ separation, they owned a joint bank account with over $40,000 in it. When the former husband filed for divorce, the former wife filed a motion to stop the former husband from dissipating assets and alleged that he had depleted almost the entire account. The evidence showed the former husband spent the money on repairs and renovations to the parties’ jointly-owned real property, as well as on a tractor for the parties’ barn. The court initially denied the former wife’s motion, but a successor judge later determined at trial that the former husband had dissipated these funds, focusing on the benefit of the purchases made and the timing of them. Therefore, the court ordered an equitable distribution scheme which placed most of the spent $40,000+ into the former husband’s column, resulting. The former husband appealed.

The appellate court noted “It is neither intentional misconduct nor a purpose unrelated to the marriage to use funds for attorney’s fees or to pay household bills and support the family.” The court also recognized the long standing rule that sums that have been appropriately spent while the divorce is pending cannot be included in equitable distribution. Determining that the former husband’s expenditures were appropriate and not made for an improper purpose, the court held “the trial court improperly focused on the timing of the purchase and financing and Former Wife’s lack of consent. The applicable analysis concerns only whether the purchase was reasonably related to the marriage, not when it occurred or if there was consent to it.” The court also noted “Moreover, the trial court improperly focused on whether Former Husband showed a benefit to the barn acreage, which is not part of the diminishment test.”

The former husband also challenged an award of durational alimony to the former wife, arguing in part that the trial court awarded alimony based on speculative expenses. The appellate court agreed, holding “the trial court used outdated, anticipated numbers that were not derived from any verifiable source and conflicted with Former Wife’s testimony that her actual expenses were far less. Because the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Former Wife has $4,478 in monthly expenses, resulting in a $3,000 monthly deficit and need, the court abused its discretion in awarding her durational alimony in that amount.”

Schedule your consultation with a Miami divorce attorney to learn how the law may apply to the specific factors in your case.