Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce'
Is the length of the marriage relevant to the court’s determination of equitable distribution in a Florida divorce case? This issue was discussed in a recent case in which the wife added her husband’s name to the title on real property the wife owned prior to the marriage, just two months into the marriage, and the parties ended up separating after only 19 months of marriage. The case is Crossen v. Feeley, 4D2024-3024 (Fla. 4th DCA February 11, 2026).
The former wife owned a condominium prior to marriage which was gifted to her by her parents. The parents paid multiple monthly expenses associated with the property. The former husband paid only the electricity and a portion of the taxes, and testified that he used marital funds to replace some light fixtures. After the filing of the petition for divorce and until trial, the former husband lived in the property and the former wife lived elsewhere. The former wife sought an unequal distribution of the property, but the trial court rejected this, reasoning the former wife herself did not contribute to the property, The trial court also rejected the former wife’s claim for reimbursement of expenses paid on the property, reasoning her parents paid them and not her. The former wife appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding “Courts have looked to section 61.075(1)(j) to conclude that an interspousal gift during a marriage does not preclude unequal distribution of that gift in a dissolution proceeding. That section allows a court to consider ‘[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.’ 61.075(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2023). We have observed that ‘[t]he fact that an asset is determined to be an interspousal gift and then categorized as a marital asset does not mandate that the asset be split equally where an unequal split is ‘necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.’’ Williams v. Williams, 686 So. 2d 805, 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting § 61.075(1)(j)).” The court noted that section 61.075 also lists the duration of the marriage as a factor to consider when determining if there should be unequal division of assets.
The appellate court also found it was error for the trial court to deny the former wife’s request for reimbursement of expenses paid on the property after the filing of the petition, holding “Here, the trial court’s justification for not having the husband pay his fair share of expenses for the unit was that the wife’s parents had paid the expenses owed as a gift to the wife. Failure to pay such expenses would have put the unit at peril of lien foreclosure. No one testified this payment was a gift to the husband. The presumption of a gift requires ‘donative intent, delivery of possession[,] and surrender of dominion and control.’ Renner v. Renner, 400 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); McHugh v. McHugh, 397 So. 3d 1179, 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).”
The court concluded “While the payments for the expenses were delivered and surrendered, no direct evidence existed of the parents’ donative intent regarding the husband’s financial obligations on the unit. It defies common sense to believe that the wife’s parents intended to make such a gift to the husband, who was in the middle of a divorce proceeding with their daughter, and who maintained sole possession of the unit while the wife lived elsewhere.”
The court also reversed the trial court’s ruling that the parties’ dog would be equally owned by them, citing Florida law that pets are property. Nothing in this article is legal advice. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.