Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

If the value of the marital home increases after a final judgment of divorce is entered, can the equitable distribution be reconsidered to grant either party more equity in the home? This was an issue in the case Griffin v. Griffin, 1D2022-3095 (Fla. 1st DCA July 24, 2024).

In the parties’ 2018 final judgment of divorce, the former wife was awarded the marital home while being ordered to pay the former husband an equalizing payment. The former husband appealed the equitable distribution scheme in the final judgment, and his appeal was successful, resulting in the trial court amending the judgment in 2020 to provide for an increased equalizing payment to the former husband. Ultimately, the amount owed by former wife was offset by child support and attorney’s fees owed by the former husband. Approximately two years after entry of the amended judgment, the former husband filed a motion arguing that the marital home increased in value, and if it is sold, the proceeds should be equally divided. The trial court disagreed and denied his motion, resulting in his appeal.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding “The former husband had 30 days to challenge the equitable distribution of marital assets and debts in the amended final judgment. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). He failed to do so in early 2020 and cannot do so now. By the explicit terms of section 61.075(2), Florida Statutes, the equalizing payment to the former husband vested when it was awarded in the amended final judgment and cannot be challenged now.”

The court concluded “The former husband argues on appeal that Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(b)(5) applies to grant him relief since ‘it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.’ That was not the argument that the former husband made below. Rather, he claimed that various predecessor judges had said that ‘money from the marital home must be equally divided.’ But that is not what the final judgment or amended final judgment said. Since the former husband did not raise rule 12.540(b)(5) in the trial court, we cannot reverse on those grounds. [internal citation omitted]. Even if the former husband had brought a claim under rule 12.540(b)(5) in the trial court, it would fail. To sustain such a claim there must be ‘new circumstances’ post judgment. Schmidt v. Nipper, 287 So. 3d 1289, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). The fact that the former marital home may have appreciated in value is not a new circumstance. See Reese v. Levin, 123 So. 809, 811 (Fla. 1929) (noting that courts will take judicial notice of the ‘unstable or fluctuating values of real estate’). The former husband is no more entitled to relief than the former wife would be had the marital home depreciated in value in the intervening years since the amended final judgment was entered.”

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