Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
In a Florida divorce, how is an account held by a spouse and a third party divided in equitable distribution? This was one of many issues explored on appeal in the case Williams v. Williams, 3D24-0974 (Fla. 3d DCA February 4, 2026).
In this divorce case, the trial court determined child custody, child support and equitable distribution. Reunification therapy was ordered between the former husband and the parties’ child, with a time-sharing schedule to commence after the completion of the therapy. The former wife was awarded sole parental responsibility even though both parties stated in their pleadings that shared parental responsibility was in the best interest of the children. Half of the former husband’s pension account was awarded to the former wife, including non-vested benefits. Finally, the court ordered that the parties keep investment accounts in their respective names. At trial, testimony was presented regarding an investment account held in the name of the former husband and his mother. The unrebutted testimony concerning this account was that the mother solely deposited into the account, and he former husband managed it for her. The former husband appealed.
As to the time-sharing, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion. However, the court found error in the award of sole parental responsibility where neither party pled for the same, noting “Florida courts have reversed an award of sole parental responsibility when neither party requested it, even if competent substantial evidence supported the finding of detriment.” The former husband also took issue with the court making him fully responsible for transportation costs associated with time-sharing (he lived out of state). The appellate court noted “In the Final Judgment, the trial court did not explain why it was requiring the Husband to pay 100% of the transportation costs for the minor children if they were to travel for his timesharing with them. Thus, we cannot discern from this record whether this was correct. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion on this issue. Reversal and remand are required so that the trial court can provide specific factual findings to support its decision regarding the Husband’s sole responsibility for the transportation costs for the minor children for the Husband’s timesharing and, if warranted, amend the Final Judgment accordingly.”
Turning to child support, specifically extracurricular activity costs, the appellate court held “Here, the trial court calculated the Husband’s monthly child support obligation. In addition, the court further ordered that the costs of extra- curricular activities, including but not limited to uniforms and equipment, shall be paid equally between the parties. However, there was no evidence presented regarding extra-curricular activities for the children agreed to by both parties. Thus, it was an abuse of discretion to order the parties to share equally in extracurricular expenses when either party could unilaterally enroll the children in activities.”
Last, turning to the equitable distribution, the court upheld the trial court’s division of the non-vested pension benefits, holding “Military pensions earned during marriage are marital assets regardless of vesting status. [. . .] Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Wife 50% of the Husband’s military pension, even though it did not make a finding about the pension’s value in dollars. We affirm on this issue but remand and direct the court to amend the Final Judgment to reflect that it is retaining jurisdiction over this issue.”
As to the investment account held jointly by the former husband and his mother, the appellate court noted “There was no evidence to contradict that the Husband and Ms. Lockhart jointly owned one of the TD Ameritrade Accounts.” The court concluded “As with the Thrift Savings Plans award, because we cannot ascertain from the record if in fact the trial court listed the jointly owned TD Ameritrade Account on the equitable distribution chart because the chart is illegible, we reverse and remand so that the trial court can provide legible copies of the equitable distribution chart. And if the jointly owned TD Ameritrade Account was equitably distributed, we direct the court to remove it from its equitable distribution award because the trial court abused its discretion in equitably distributing this jointly owned account.”
This article is not legal advice. For advice specific to your case, schedule a meeting with a Miami family law attorney.