Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

A spouse who pays all of the expenses on a marital home may feel he or she is entitled to all equity in the home. However, this may not be the case because of Florida equitable distribution laws. The case Bellegarde v. Bellegarde, 4D2023-3133 (Fla. 4th DCA August 7, 2024) sheds light on this issue.

During the parties’ marriage, they decided to have a home built. When it was time to close on the home, the former husband changed his mind and decided he did not want the house. He was living with another woman at the time. The closing proceeded, and the former wife resided in the home and paid all expenses on the home solely. The former husband’s name was on the mortgage but not the title. Eventually the former husband moved into the home, but a divorce petition was eventually filed. The former wife testified she was the sole caretaker of the parties’ child, and even while the former husband lived in the home, he did not pay any expenses toward the home. The former husband testified that he paid for the child’s tuition and volleyball coach. The trial court entered a final judgment denying the former wife’s request for unequal distribution of the marital home, denied her request for retroactive support, denied her request for credits and setoffs and denied her request for attorney’s fees. The former wife appealed.

The appellate court noted “Section 61.075(7), Florida Statutes (2020), provides, ‘The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances.’ Thus, ‘[a] trial court, in its discretion, may value different assets and liabilities as of different dates as the circumstances require’ [internal citation omitted].” The court found “Here, testimony showed the former wife made ALL the mortgage payments. The former husband made NO financial contributions to the marital home. And, the former wife paid for repairs, homeowners association fees, and taxes before, during, and after the former husband chose to live there. In fact, the former husband had not lived in the marital home for seven years prior to the former wife filing of the petition for dissolution.” The court held “The trial court erred in two respects. First, it failed to make specific written findings to justify its use of the more recent valuation of the home. See Jordan v. Jordan, 127 So. 3d 794, 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). And second, the facts of this case do not justify using the more recent date to value the home.”

The court then turned to the issue of credits to the former wife, and held “In her second issue, the former wife argues the trial court erred when it did not award her credit for half of the mortgage and property tax payments she alone paid since the date of their separation. This is an equally convincing argument. However, based on our decision concerning the valuation of the marital property, we find no error in denying the former wife’s request in this regard.”

Last, as to the denial of the former wife’s request for retroactive child support, the court held “Here, we are unable to discern from the record a demonstrated need for child support, what amount was appropriate, or whether the amount the former husband paid for private tuition and the volleyball coach met or exceeded an appropriate amount. It does appear however the trial court found the private tuition and volleyball coach was equivalent to child support. We therefore affirm on this issue.”

Schedule your appointment with a Miami family law attorney to understand your potential rights and remedies in your case.