Santiago v. Santiago
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 79
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dalton and Tabatha Santiago obtained a dissolution judgment; assets awarded to Tabatha totaled about $127,000 (home $85,000, timeshare $17,000, 401(k) $15,000, car $8,000, jewelry $2,000) while Dalton received a car valued at $23,500; the court assigned the marital tax liability to Dalton without a court finding of the amount; evidence suggested the IRS owed about $101,000, though the exact amount was disputed; the court found Dalton depleted marital assets by funds from the sale of his business but did not quantify the depletion; the court did not make specific findings supporting the unequal distribution; the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and remanded for explicit findings or a new scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the distribution was improperly unequal without explicit findings. | Santiago argues the unequal distribution lacked supporting factual findings. | Santiago contends the court properly considered asset depletion and tax consequences. | Yes; improper without specific findings, reversal and remand. |
| Whether imposing the tax liability solely on the husband was proper. | Husband argues the tax impact should be considered in the distribution. | Wife argues the tax should be allocated to husband due to his conduct. | Abuse of discretion; need explicit tax amount and rationale. |
| Whether the court erred by not quantifying assets dissipated and the tax liability. | Husband asserts depletion amount and tax liability were not properly determined. | Wife asserts the court weighed all factors. | Error; lack of findings on depletion and tax undermines review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Rogers, 12 So.3d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (equitable distribution may be unequal with justification)
- Guida v. Guida, 870 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (requires specific findings to justify unequal distribution)
- Boutwell v. Adams, 920 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (unequal distribution penalized twice for debts when debt considered in distribution)
- Lorman v. Lorman, 633 So.2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (court must determine tax amount before allocating tax liability)
- Noah v. Noah, 491 So.2d 1124 (Fla.1986) (allowing reconsideration of alimony/fees when distribution changes)
- Jonsson v. Jonsson, 715 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (trial court may consider dissipation in equitable distribution)