Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Does a divorce case filed in another country stop a Florida divorce case from proceeding between the same parties? The answer depends on many factors, but generally just because a divorce case is filed elsewhere does not mean Florida does not also have jurisdiction to decide issues related to the divorce. This was discussed in the case Lee v. Lee, 2D21-1171 (Fla. 2d DCA November 30, 2022).

The parties were married for approximately 18 years by the time they decided to divorce. Before the divorce was filed, the wife took a job in Finland, moving there with the parties’ children. The plan was for the husband to eventually join them from Florida, but the year following the wife’s move, she filed for divorce in Finland. A final judgment of divorce was eventually entered in Finland which did not address equitable distribution or alimony.

The husband then filed a petition for divorce in Florida, requesting equitable distribution and alimony. The wife filed a petition for partition of marital property. The husband attempted to have both cases consolidated to no avail. When the wife moved for summary judgment on her partition claim, the husband sought leave to amend his petition to add a claim for credits due to him upon the sale of the home. The court denied this motion and entered summary judgment in favor of the wife. As to the husband’s petition for dissolution, a hearing was held, and the court ultimately denied the petition, holding the husband waived alimony where it was not address in the Finnish decree, and the only viable claim was for partition which was already addressed in the separate action filed by the wife. Finally, the court denied the husband’s claim for attorney’s fees and awarded fees to the wife for the husband’s vexatious litigation. The husband appealed.

First, the appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion in denying the husband’s request to consolidate the partition and dissolution actions. It held “In short, consolidating the partition action with the family law action allows for a faster, cheaper, and more complete disposition of the parties' claims. While the record reveals that at least one of these motions to consolidate was denied because the partition action was close to trial, that is not reason enough to deny consolidation.”

Turning to the issue of equitable distribution, the appellate court reversed the denial of the husband’s request, holding “In this case, despite there being evidence relating to the parties' bank account balances, retirement plans, stock accounts, cars, the Finland house, and credit card debt, the trial court's order dismissing the petition for distribution of assets finds that the only marital asset was the house in Florida—which had already been sold in the partition action. This was error. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for the trial court to identify all marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities of the parties, value the marital assets and liabilities, distribute the marital assets and liabilities, and finally, calculate a proper equalizing payment, if necessary.”

As to the finding by the trial court that the husband waived his alimony claim, the appellate court held “This finding by the trial court is not supported by competent, substantial evidence where both parties testified, and the translated copy of the Finnish divorce decree indicates that the Finnish court did not consider or rule upon any issues related to alimony. Therefore, because the issue was not ruled upon by the Finnish court, the Former Husband's alimony claim was not waived [. . .].”

The appellate court further reversed the attorney’s fee award to the former wife, holding “Contrary to the trial court's findings, it was the Former Wife who brought the second-in-time suit after she learned that the Former Husband was seeking to equitably distribute their marital assets and liabilities. Moreover, the vague finding that the Former Husband's ‘insistence in taking this second suit to judgment’ lacks the 'high degree of specificity' required by Moakley, 826 So. 2d at 227.’ See Myrick, 214 So. 3d at 773. Furthermore, the trial court's vexatious finding constitutes an abuse of discretion in that none of the Former Husband's actions rise to the level of conduct that the inequitable conduct doctrine was designed to punish.”

Finally, considering the argument that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the husband’s request for credits due to him in the partition action for expenses paid solely by him after the wife moved, the appellate court found it was error not to allow the husband leave to amend his pleadings to include this claim. Nonetheless, the court found that even without allowing him to amend, the husband sufficiently pled for the credits when he asked for a partition pursuant to § 64.051, Fla. Stat. The court held “This necessarily includes an accounting establishing the credits due between the parties. No credits were considered by the partition court. This was error.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami divorce lawyer to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.