Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
Equitable distribution in a Florida divorce requires specific written findings of fact regarding the following: (a) Clear identification of nonmarital assets and ownership interests; (b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall be entitled to each asset; (c) Identification of the marital liabilities and designation of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability; and (d) any other findings necessary to advise the parties or the reviewing court of the trial court’s rationale for the distribution of marital assets and allocation of liabilities. See Fla. Stat. Chp. 61.075.
In the case Noss v. Noss, 3D24-2032 (Fla. 3d DCA October 22, 2025), the trial court considered arguments from both sides about the valuation of certain assets and the classification of a corporate entity established by the former wife prior to the marriage. At trial, the court received evidence that the entity grew due to the wife’s labor during the marriage, and received testimony from the former husband about his estimated value of the wife’s personal property, including her jewelry, purses and furnishings in the home. The trial court ruled the corporate entity was a marital asset and ordered the former wife to transfer half of the entity’s assets to the former husband. The court also accepted the former husband’s estimates as to the value of the former wife’s personal property in deciding equitable distribution. The former wife appealed.
The appellate court noted “Efforts and improvements do ‘not transform the entire [nonmarital] asset into a marital asset.’ Martin v. Martin, 923 So. 2d 1236, 1238–39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Instead, it is the ‘enhancement in value and appreciation which becomes a marital asset.’ Id. at 1239.” Based on this, the court found the entity was non-marital. The court further held “The wife contends that the lower court erred in bifurcating the proceedings to allow further valuation evidence [regarding the corporate entity]. Cognizant of the deficiencies inherent in conducting an asset-based valuation of a staffing agency, we find no abuse of discretion in the bifurcation. To the extent the trial court ordered the direct equitable distribution of Premier’s corporate accounts, however, we are constrained to reverse. The assets held by the corporation were but one component in the yet-to-be-completed valuation determination, and “the trial court has no power to order a transfer of corporate assets without joinder of the corporation.” Ashourian v. Ashourian, 483 So. 2d 486, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) [. . .].”
The appellate court also reversed as to the personal property, holding “Lastly, there was no evidence of record concerning the $15,000 in cash in the home; and, while ‘an owner of property is generally qualified to testify as to the fair market value of his property,’ State v. Hawthorne, 573 So. 2d 330, 333 n.6 (Fla. 1991), the husband failed to describe any of the wife’s jewelry, other personal items, or the parties’ furnishings with any specificity to support his broad, conclusory estimate. Hence, the equitable distribution of these items fails for want of competent, substantial evidence.”
Nothing in this article should be taken as legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney.