Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
In a recent Miami divorce case, the former wife appealed various issues related to alimony and equitable distribution. The case Weininger v. Weininger, 3D17-49 (Fla. 3d DCA October 10, 2019) involved allegations of infidelity and misuse of marital funds.
The parties were involved in a long-term marriage that began in 1977. By the time a divorce petition was filed in 2009, the parties had two adult children and had accumulated significant assets. The former wife alleged the former husband moved in with his mistress and was spending marital funds on her and the mistress’ son. The former wife received a $9 million dollar settlement from a lawsuit involving her father. With these funds, she set up a trust and the evidence showed she took out a loan from the trust to pay her living expenses. After a hearing, the trial court denied the former wife’s request for permanent alimony, denied the former wife’s request for an unequal distribution of marital funds and denied her request for a credit for payments she made toward a marital property while the divorce was pending.
The former wife appealed and the appellate court upheld all of the trial court’s rulings, except a ruling that failed to distribute marital funds from a insurance account. With regard to alimony, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion because the evidence showed the former wife had significant assets available to her via the trust and the equitable distribution, and she was able-bodied and capable of working. The former husband on the other hand was forced to retire.
As it relates to the former wife’s claim that the former husband wasted marital funds on his mistress, the appellate court disagreed, holding “[the former husband] admits to using the funds in the Schwab Account to pay for his living expenses while the parties were separated. These expenses include, among others, attorney's fees, federal income taxes, and furniture and household goods for his new house. The trial court found that having utilized his Delta salary to pay the mortgages on the rental properties, [the former husband’s] only source of funds to support himself was the Schwab Account. Under these circumstances, [the former husband] justifiably used the Schwab Account to pay for his living expenses.” The court also agreed with the trial court’s decision not to allow the former wife to take the deposition of the mistress about the Schwab account since the former wife had detailed account statements showing the former husband’s withdrawals from the account.
Next, the appellate court agreed with the valuation date used by the court to value the former husband’s retirement account (the date of filing), noting “Courts have broad discretion to value marital assets using a date that is fair and equitable under the circumstances. § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2016).” Regarding the former wife’s claim for credits for mortgage payments made while the divorce was pending, the appellate court held “‘Reimbursement or credit for a party's payment of marital property-related expenses during separation is a matter of judicial discretion in light of all relevant circumstances.’ Here, Janet benefitted from the mortgage payments made by Michael. The trial court was well within its discretion to offset Janet's benefits by awarding Michael a credit for these payments. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's credit award.” The appellate court also upheld a credit to the former husband for furniture he purchased for the marital home because the former wife failed to provide evidence to the trial court contradicting the former husband’s testimony about the furniture and its value.
Last, the appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision to classify an insurance account as a contingent asset not subject to distribution. The evidence showed, and the former husband conceded, that marital funds were in the account. However, the former husband took the position that since he would not benefit from those funds and they would only pass to his beneficiaries upon death, the asset was contingent and therefore not subject to distribution. The appellate court disagreed, holding “Upon review, we find that the trial court erred by failing to equitably distribute the account funds. The fact that the account funds could be distributed upon Michael's death, does not change their nature as a marital asset. Janet should have received a credit for her marital portion of the account.”
This case is an example of the details that are important in a Florida divorce case. Without the help of an attorney, these details might be missed. Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to go over the specific details of your case.