Blog

What Is the Difference Between Dissipation of Income and Ordinary Living Expenses Spending in an Orlando, Florida Area Divorce Case?

What is the difference between the dissipation of income and ordinary living expenses spending in the Orlando, Florida area divorce case? As a general rule, it is an error to include inequitable distribution scheme assets or sums that have been diminished or depleted during the dissolution proceedings unless depletion was the result of misconduct. When misconduct during the dissolution proceedings results in the dissipation of a marital asset, the misconduct may serve as a basis for assigning the dissipated asset to the spending spouse when calculating equitable distribution. 

When considering whether the dissipation of an asset resulted from misconduct, the question for the trial court is whether one spouse used marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. The misconduct necessary to support the inclusion of dissipated assets in the equitable distribution scheme does not include mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves. Instead, to include a dissipated asset in the equitable distribution scheme, there must be evidence of the spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset and the trial court must make a specific finding that the dissipation resulted from intentional misconduct.  

Florida Courts have reversed an award of dissipated assets because the wife’s testimony that she used the assets for attorney’s fees and living expenses during the dissolution of marriage proceedings was unrebutted and the trial court did find the wife guilty of misconduct. In another decision, a court reversed award of dissipation of assets when evidence showed that the husband exercised his stock options to pay the parties’ financial obligations during the dissolution of marriage. Also, a court reversed award of dissipation of asset when the husband’s testimony that he used the IRA funds to pay temporary support obligations and his own living expenses was unrebutted and there was no finding of misconduct. There was also a decision of the court which reversed award of dissipated asset when no evidence contradicted the wife’s testimony that she expended the funds in her IRA for support during dissolution proceedings. There was another case where the court reversed the equitable distribution of contested brokerage and investment accounts which were depleted at the time of the final hearing due to lack of fact of any finding of misconduct by the husband. 

If you have more questions regarding a Marital and Family Law matter, you may call Ann Marie Giordano Gilden at Ann Marie Giordano Gilden, P.A. at 407-732-7620 and set an initial consultation. You may also visit my website at: https//:www.AnnMarieGildenLaw.com

This article is for informational purposes only; and it does not form an attorney client privilege.