Boynton Beach Beach Divorce Attorneys
This Boynton Beach divorce lawyer recently reviewed a Florida appellate court decision that exemplifies how courts are suppossed to deal with comments known as “dissipation” or “marital waste.”
In Belford v. Belford, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D163a (Fla. 2D DCA Jan. 21, 2011), the husband had appealed a trial court decision that charged him with nearly $90,000 of assets that were used by him during the parties’ separation.
Typically, in Florida, parties equally split everything that is considered a marital asset or marital liability. However, in some cases, where a spouse can show that assets were wasted, a spouse can be “charged” with the waste of assets. Oftentimes this concept arises when one spouse improperly spends money on a parmour.
In Belford, the appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the trial court did not make the findings requisite to support the conclusion that the husband had wrongfully depleted -wasted- marital assets: “This aspect of the final judgment was erroneous for two reasons. First, the magistrate’s finding that Mr. Belford had spent marital funds and incurred marital debt for nonmarital purposes was unsupported by evidence. To be sure, Ms. Belford asserted her belief that Mr. Belford was “shoving the money to Mexico for some time,” but she offered no proof in support of that speculation. Mr. Belford denied the allegation and outlined his use of the funds for marital purposes. Second, the magistrate’s conclusion that the dissipation was not intentional should have resolved the issue in Mr. Belford’s favor….In the absence of misconduct, it is error to charge to a party’s share of equitable distribution assets that were dissipated during the dissolution proceedings. Roth v. Roth, 973 So. 2d 580, 584-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Likewise, in the absence of misconduct, it is error to classify marital debt as one party’s nonmarital obligation. Branch v. Branch, 775 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Misconduct is not shown by “mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves.” Roth, 973 So. 2d at 585. Rather, there must be a specific finding of intentional misconduct based on evidence showing that the marital funds were used for one party’s “own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Id. (quoting Romano v. Romano, 632 So. 2d 207, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).”
Click Boynton Beach Divorce Attorney to read the appellate court’s decision in Belford.
The attorneys and paralegals with the law firm of Nugent &Zborowski dedicate their practice to efficiently resolving their client’s divorce and family law matters. Call 561.844.1200, or click Boynton Beach Family Lawyer to arrange to speak with one of the firm’s Boynton Beach divorce lawyers about the equitable distribution issues inherent to your divorce case.
Filed Under Boynton Beach Divorce Lawyer, Delray Beach Divorce Lawyer