Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
When a spouse is thinking about filing for divorce in Florida, he or she may wonder what immediate rights each spouse has to property and to financial support. Many counties in Florida, including Miami-Dade County, has what is known as a status quo order which states that once a petition for divorce is filed, the parties must generally maintain the status quo by, for example, continuing to pay expenses that have been historically paid and maintaining insurance policies. But what about before a divorce petition is filed? If a spouse intentionally disposes of or hides assets in preparation for a divorce filing, this is a factor that can be considered in equitable distribution. Such was the case in Corrales v. Corrales, 3D19-2524 (Fla. 3d DCA December 23, 2020).
The parties had been married for nearly thirty years and had one adult son. After their marriage, they moved into a home owned by the husband prior to marriage and they started a business. The business allowed them to live a lavish lifestyle and they both regularly drew salaries from the business. At one point, while the wife and the parties’ then-minor son were away, the husband moved out of the home and removed large sums of money from a joint account, as well as major assets from their homes. The husband filed for divorce and around that time began withholding financial support. After a trial, the wife was awarded alimony and the court granted her an unequal distribution of the marital estate in her favor. The husband appealed, arguing it was error for the court to fail to award him his non-marital portion of the home he earned prior to marriage, that the court erred in granting the wife an unequal distribution of assets, and that the court’s alimony determination was erroneous.
On all three matters, the appellate court affirmed. With regard to the home, the evidence showed that loans taken out on the property and marital property used to repay those loans exceeded the premarital value of the property. Nonetheless, the court ruled it was the husband’s burden to properly plead for his non-marital interest in the home, which he did not do. Next, the court ruled the unequal distribution was supported by the record where “Here, after presiding over the lengthy trial, the lower court rendered an exhaustive order, detailing the intentional misconduct of the husband in secreting and dissipating assets, all purportedly in preparation for his future dissolution filing. Moreover, the valuations embraced by the lower tribunal were grounded upon expert opinion. Recognizing ‘the trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact,’ we conclude the challenged findings are well-supported by competent, substantial evidence.” (internal citation omitted). Last as to alimony, the court ruled “[G]iven the evidence regarding the length of the marriage, needs of the wife, and disparity in income and earning ability, along with the lavish marital lifestyle, we find no abuse of discretion in either of the alimony awards.”
Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to go over how the law may apply to the facts of your case.