Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
If parties agree to resolve an issue before trial, can the trial court make rulings that may contradict the agreement? In the case Taha v. Hassan, 6D2024-1270 (Fla. 6th DCA October 3, 2025), the parties entered a stipulation regarding equitable distribution, yet the trial court ordered the husband to make an equalizing payment to the wife for the husband’s alleged dissipation of marital assets.
Before trial, the parties entered a stipulation in which they agreed to keep their respective assets and debts. No argument was made at their divorce trial regarding equitable distribution. However, the trial court ordered the former husband to make an equalizing payment to the former wife, finding that he dissipated assets during the divorce. The former husband appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding “We review de novo whether the parties’ stipulation prevented the trial court from taking this action. See Holcombe v. City of Naples/Johns E. Co., 328 So. 3d 311, 314–15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). We find that it did because ‘[a] stipulation properly entered into and relating to a matter upon which it is appropriate to stipulate is binding upon the parties and upon the Court.’ Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1971); see also Yeakle v. Yeakle, 12 So. 3d 884, 885–86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The parties’ stipulation was unambiguous and required no clarification or modification. See Yeakle, 12 So. 3d at 886; Steiner v. Steiner, 638 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.