Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
Court Attempts to Make Husband Pay for Wife's "Future Law Suits"
December 10, 2008
Topic: Family
Florida is an "equitable distribution state" which means that any marital assets or liabilities must be justly divided and assigned in a divorce proceeding. Courts often have to get creative in their distribution in order to make the process fair, and to reach a just resolution in the case. Recently, however, a court may have taken that process a little too far.
In Perkovich v. Humphrey-Perkovich, (33 Fla. L. Weekly D2717a) the parties were seeking a divorce but ran into a problem with assigning some future liabilities. The court found that the Wife, who was a doctor, had treated patients during the course of the marriage and noted that the "very nature of the Wife's profession creates exposure to lawsuits." The court held that any lawsuit for malpractice stemming from a patient that the Wife had treated before the parties separated was considered a marital liability. The trial court then ordered the Husband to pay a portion of all expenses related to any future malpractice lawsuits not covered by insurance.
On appeal, the District Court overturned the trial courts decision holding that "the trial court's conclusion is speculative, at best" and that it was "error to assign responsibility for potential future claims of this type to the Former Husband." The District court also noted that Section 61.075(5)(a), Florida Statutes, which defines "marital liabilities", only encompasses those liabilities that are actually "incurred" during the marriage. Since there was no actual liability present, only the possibility of a liability, the court reversed the trial court's decision.
To avoid the situation that happened in Pekrovich, we zealously advocate that the judge must follow the law and not just come up with whatever conclusion they want to reach. Martial property, which includes debts and assets, needs to be based on ample evidence and not pure speculation or possibilities. If you can't quantify it, then the court shouldn't be distributing it.
