SC2024-0428
Fla.
Jul 9, 2026
Read the full case

Background

  • Stewart filed for dissolution of marriage, and the trial court later reserved equitable distribution, alimony, and fee issues while valuing marital property as of the petition date. 1
  • The former wife sought prejudgment interest on her share of marital assets from the filing date until distribution, but the trial court denied it due to pandemic-related delay concerns. 2
  • The Third District reversed the prejudgment-interest ruling, concluding the trial court's stated reason lacked evidentiary support and conflicted with equitable-distribution purposes. 3
  • The First District in Iarussi held prejudgment interest is never authorized in equitable distribution because section 61.075 does not mention it and expressly mentions postjudgment interest. 4
  • The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether section 61.075 permits prejudgment interest in equitable distribution. 5
  • The Court held prejudgment interest may be awarded discretionarily to achieve equity, but is not automatic entitlement. 6

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Does section 61.075 authorize prejudgment interest? 7 Vindel said section 61.075's equity language permits prejudgment interest. Stewart said the statute omits prejudgment interest and bars it. Yes; the statute's equitable-remedy language includes prejudgment interest. 8
Does silence plus postjudgment-interest text exclude prejudgment interest? 9 The statute's broad equity powers cover unspecified remedies. Express postjudgment interest implies prejudgment interest is excluded. No; the negative-implication canon does not defeat authority here. 10
Is prejudgment interest incompatible with equitable distribution and Argonaut? 11 Prejudgment interest makes a spouse whole and can be equitable. Equitable distribution involves joint ownership, not loss. No; loss-theory prejudgment interest fits equity in dissolution cases. 12
Is prejudgment interest automatic in dissolution cases? 13 Specific facts can justify the remedy. No prejudgment interest should be available at all. No; it is discretionary and fact-dependent. 14

Key Cases Cited

  • Vindel v. Stewart, 388 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (approved in part; held prejudgment interest unsupported on the facts below 15)
  • Iarussi v. Iarussi, 353 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (held prejudgment interest is never permitted in equitable distribution 16)
  • Coates v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 365 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 2023) (textual meaning depends on statutory context 17)
  • Levy v. Levy, 326 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2021) (statutory text means what it conveys in context 18)
  • Lab'y Corp. of Am. v. Davis, 339 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 2022) (statutory interpretation requires considering context 19)
  • K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1988) (statute should be read as a whole 20)
  • Bethesda Hosp. Ass'n v. Bowen, 485 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1988) (whole-statute approach to interpretation 21)
  • Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (domestic-relations trial judges need broad discretion 22)
  • Beers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (equitable-distribution dissipation provisions serve equitable purposes 23)
  • Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985) (prejudgment interest makes the plaintiff whole from the date of loss 24)
  • Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 2010) (prejudgment interest is remedial and makes the claimant whole 25)
  • Broward County v. Finlayson, 555 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1990) (prejudgment interest may depend on equitable considerations 26)
  • Alachua County v. Watson, 333 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 2022) (negative-implication canon must be applied cautiously 27)
  • S. Marion Real Est. Holdings, LLC v. Fla. Gaming Control Comm'n, 387 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (expressio unius applies only when the specification is exhaustive 28)
  • Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc., 46 So. 3d 42 (Fla. 2010) (distinguishes loss-theory prejudgment interest from penalties 29)
  • Catalfumo v. Catalfumo, 704 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (prejudgment interest may be appropriate when a spouse is deprived of marital property 30)
  • Schuenzel v. Schuenzel, 320 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (district court allowing prejudgment interest in equitable distribution 31)
  • Mobley v. Mobley, 920 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (district court allowing prejudgment interest in equitable distribution 32)
  • Armstrong v. City of Edgewater, 157 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1963) (courts should not supply omitted statutory words 33)
  • Dade County v. Nat'l Bulk Carriers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1984) (courts may not add remedies the Legislature omitted 34)
Read the full case