Background
The former husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage on two issues: (1) the trial court’s failure to credit him for $100,000 in marital expenses paid from his retirement account during the dissolution proceedings, and (2) the lack of a mechanism to ensure compensation if the former wife failed to refinance the marital residence as ordered.
After filing his financial affidavit, the former husband withdrew $100,000 from his retirement account to pay household and living expenses, including expenses for the parties’ minor child. The trial court found his testimony about the withdrawals credible but declined to deduct the amount from the retirement account’s value for equitable distribution purposes, reasoning that it was not equitable for the husband to withdraw funds without the wife’s agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth DCA reversed on both issues. On the retirement account valuation, the court held it was error to include dissipated assets in the equitable distribution scheme without a specific finding of intentional misconduct. Under Briggs v. Briggs, 336 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), sums “diminished during the dissolution proceedings for purposes reasonably related to the marriage” should not be included in equitable distribution. The trial court found the former husband’s testimony credible that the funds were used for marital purposes and made no finding of intentional misconduct. Mere disagreement by the other spouse about how marital assets are spent does not constitute misconduct.
On the refinancing issue, the court found the final judgment deficient because it ordered the wife to refinance the marital home but provided no mechanism to ensure the husband is compensated if refinancing fails—leaving him exposed to continued liability on the mortgage without a remedy. The court remanded for the trial court to include appropriate safeguards.
Key Takeaways
- Retirement account withdrawals used for marital expenses during dissolution proceedings must be deducted from the account’s value for equitable distribution purposes unless the court makes a specific finding of intentional misconduct.
- “Misconduct” for purposes of including dissipated assets in equitable distribution requires more than simple disagreement about spending—it requires intentional waste, not mere mismanagement.
- Dissolution judgments ordering one spouse to refinance the marital home must include a mechanism protecting the other spouse if refinancing is not completed.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces important protections for spouses who use retirement funds to maintain the household during lengthy dissolution proceedings. Trial courts cannot penalize a spouse for using marital assets for marital purposes simply because the other spouse did not consent. For family law practitioners, the case also serves as a reminder that dissolution judgments involving marital home refinancing must include fallback provisions—such as forced sale deadlines or compensatory equalization payments—to protect the non-residing spouse from indefinite mortgage exposure.