Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Records from a foreign bank account may be relevant to a Florida divorce case. Admitting these records into evidence requires that certain steps be taken. This was an issue in the caseVindel v. Stewart, 3D22-757 (Fla. 3d DCA February 7, 2024).
At a hearing held in the parties’ divorce case regarding equitable distribution, the former wife objected to the former husband’s introduction of Honduran bank records into evidence. She contended there was improper authentication where the former husband did not present the proper testimony or affidavit of a records custodian from the bank. The trial court admitted the records over the former wife’s objection and found that the funds in the account were marital despite the former wife’s testimony that she did not benefit from the funds and that they were donated to charity. The former wife’s request for prejudgment interest on equitable distribution was denied based on the court’s finding that it would be inequitable to charge interest to the former husband where the delay was caused by the pandemic. The former wife’s request for attorney’s fees was also denied, and she appealed.
First with regard to the bank records, the appellate court found it was error for the court to admit them without proper authentication. The court held that a letter relied on by the trial court to authenticate the records “fail[ed] to: certify or declare that the records ‘were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person having knowledge of those matters’ (§ 90.902(11)(a)); certify or declare that the records were ‘kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity’ of the foreign bank (§ 90.902(11)(b)); or certify or declare that the records were ‘made as a regular practice in the course of the regularly conducted activity’ of the bank (§ 90.902(11)(c)). It is self-evident that this letter fails to meet the foundational requirements for authentication of these foreign bank records.”
As to the prejudgment interest, the appellate court remarked “We note, as a general proposition, that the primary purpose of awarding prejudgment interest is not to punish the Former Husband, but to compensate the Former Wife for the loss of the use of funds during a time period in which she was entitled to those funds.” The court held “In the instant case, because the trial court’s stated reason for denying the Former Wife’s motion for prejudgment interest (concluding ‘it would be inequitable to charge the Former Husband for delays largely occasioned by the pandemic’) is not supported by the competent substantial evidence and fails to consider the primary purpose of an award of prejudgment interest, we reverse and remand for the court to reconsider the Former Wife’s motion, consistent with this opinion, and in light of our reversal of a portion of the equitable distribution award.”
Finally with regard to attorney’s fees, the court held “The trial court’s summary denial of the Former Wife’s motion for attorney’s fees, without making any findings regarding the parties’ need and ability to pay, is reversible error”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.