Husband’s Gambling Problem Cited As Reason To Reduce Equitable Distribution Award
In the majority of cases, Florida courts will split the marital estate in half and distribute half its value to both parties to a divorce. In one 2017 case, Viscito v. Viscito, the husband was awarded only 50% of the passive, market-driven appreciation of a shared condominium. The former wife retained title to the condominium and exclusive liability for its mortgage debt.
In this case, the trial court determined that the property was a part of the marital estate as marital funds had been used to purchase the condominium from the wife’s sister. The title to the condominium was entirely in the wife’s name. Ultimately, it came up with a figure of $135,732.00 to represent the husband’s passive, market-driven interest in the condo. However, the court also found that the aggregate mortgage debt had also increased as a result of the former husband’s gambling problems and voluntary unemployment. In accordance with this finding, the court reduced the husband’s award in the condo by half or $67,866.
The former husband, believing his stake in the condo should be higher, appealed the decision.
The appeal
The former husband contended during his appeal that he should be awarded half of the net fair market value of the condominium, plus one-half of the passive, market-driven appreciation on the former wife’s non-marital interest, plus mortgage payments from marital funds that he purported reduced the mortgage debt on the non-marital interest in the condominium. The appeals court ruled that the former husband’s computation failed to take into account the increases in the mortgage debt caused by his gambling losses and voluntary unemployment.
The appeals court rejected the husband’s valuation for two reasons. First, the husband failed to follow the algorithm established by precedent which adjusts the allocation by accounting for the loan-to-value ratio of the property at the time of the marriage. Second, the husband’s gambling problems forced the couple to refinance the loan and incur more debt on the property.
Gambling debt and the intentional dissipation of marital assets
Gambling debt is potentially considered the intentional dissipation of marital assets. The intentional dissipation of marital assets is a concept in divorce proceedings that impacts how the courts determine matters such as alimony and equitable distribution. If one spouse intentionally depleted marital assets to sustain an addiction (like gambling) the court can consider the damage they caused to the marital estate when dividing assets between the couple.
That’s what happened in the aforementioned case. The husband was essentially “taxed” for increasing the amount of mortgage debt on the shared property. His stake in the property was reduced by 50% to make up for losses that were incurred to the property due to his conduct.
Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Attorney Today
Faulkner Law Group, PLLC represents the interests of Tampa residents who are pursuing divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin advocating on your behalf right away.
Source:
casetext.com/case/viscito-v-viscito-2
