Florida’s appellate courts have been busy this September, handing down three rulings that remind us just how unpredictable divorce litigation can be. From misplaced accusations of “dissipation” to runaway attorney’s fees and even a debate over whether teachers should pick up a summer gig, these cases show the wild variety of issues family law litigants face on appeal.
1. McKay v. Robinson – No Dissipation Without Misconduct
In McKay v. Robinson, the trial court tried to label a wife’s financial help to her child from another relationship as “intentional dissipation” of marital assets. The wife had transferred several thousand dollars for her child to invest in stock. But here’s the problem: there was no evidence of intentional misconduct.
The appellate court reversed, holding that just because money leaves the marital pot doesn’t mean it’s “wasted” or dissipated. Without proof of bad intent, unequal distribution based on dissipation won’t fly.
Takeaway: Trial courts can’t just slap the “dissipation” label on any financial decision they don’t like. Intentional misconduct must be proven.
2. Marcellus v. Peterson – Fee Inflation and Mandate Deviation
This case started with a hefty $282,105.34 attorney’s fee award for inequitable conduct. The appellate court affirmed entitlement but sent the case back for a hearing on the actual hours and rates.
On remand, instead of tightening the numbers, the trial court exploded the award to nearly half a million dollars in fees and almost another half million in fines. The Fourth DCA wasn’t amused. The court reminded everyone that trial courts must follow the mandate, not expand it.
Takeaway: When the appellate court says “do the math,” it doesn’t mean “add more zeroes.”
3. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez – No Summer Job Requirement
In Gutierrez, a schoolteacher husband argued he couldn’t pay fees and asked for need-based attorney’s fees. The trial court imputed potential summer income to him, essentially saying he could just get another job. But the judge later clarified that summer earning potential wasn’t actually the basis for denying fees.
The appellate court affirmed: the husband stays on the hook, and no one can force teachers to spend their summers moonlighting just to qualify for attorney’s fees.
Takeaway: Imputing income has limits—judges can’t just assume every teacher will flip burgers in July.
Final Thoughts
These three cases highlight the creativity (and sometimes overreach) of trial courts when dealing with money in divorce cases:
- Accusations of waste require proof of intent.
- Mandates from appellate courts mean what they say.
- Need-based fees can’t hinge on hypothetical side hustles.
For family law litigants and lawyers alike, the lesson is clear: Florida’s appellate courts are keeping a close eye on trial-level financial rulings, and they aren’t afraid to call out overreach.