Divorce is never “just paperwork.” In my experience, the most heartbreaking moment for many spouses is not the end of the relationship itself, but the discovery of financial betrayal. In Florida divorce law, this financial betrayal is formally called dissipation of assets, and it can directly affect how a court divides marital property.
Dissipation of assets often appears in unexplained cash withdrawals, sudden spikes in credit-card spending, transfers to third parties, or money spent on affairs, gambling, drugs, or other non-household purposes.
Florida is a no-fault divorce state. This means that a Florida court will grant a dissolution of marriage when the marriage is “irretrievably broken.” § 61.052, Fla. Stat.. No proof of marital misconduct is required. Id. In other words, if one spouse wants to get a divorce, he or she does not have to prove adultery, abandonment, or any other wrongdoing to do so.
Here is the catch. Florida law does not punish marital misconduct when deciding whether a divorce should be granted, but financial misconduct can become vital when a court divides marital assets.
In my Naples, Florida divorce law practice, I often see disputes arise over what is called dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets. Whatever label you use, these terms all describe the same basic concept: one spouse used marital funds for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the relationship was already breaking down.
Florida law explicitly recognizes this dissipation. In distributing marital assets and liabilities, a court “must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal,” unless there is a justification for unequal distribution based on the enumerated factors, such as “[t]he intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.” § 61.075(1), (1)(i), Fla. Stat..
Put another way, if one spouse secretly spends marital money for his or her own gain during the breakdown of the marriage, a Florida court may take that conduct into consideration when deciding how the remaining marital property should be divided.
Financial Betrayal and Equitable Distribution in a Florida Divorce
In Florida, property is divided using an equitable distribution framework. Under § 61.075(1), Florida Statutes, a court first must set apart each spouse’s nonmarital assets and liabilities and then distribute the marital assets and liabilities between them.
When dissipation is alleged, two features of § 61.075 immediately come into play.
First, Florida begins with equality. A court “must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal.” § 61.075(1), Fla. Stat.. Essentially, this means the court starts with a 50/50 split, unless the facts justify something different.
Second, the statute permits unequal distribution in circumstances where one spouse intentionally reduced the marital estate. One factor is “[t]he intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.” § 61.075(1)(i), Fla. Stat..
That is the role dissipation plays in Florida. It is an equitable-distribution factor, which allows courts to restore fairness when one spouse intentionally reduced the marital estate. Martinez v. Martinez explains that, under section 61.075(1)(i), if a spouse intentionally dissipates a marital asset, “the trial court has the authority and discretion to assign the dissipated asset to the dissipating spouse as part of that spouse’s equitable distribution.” 219 So. 3d 259, 262.
Florida courts, time and time again, insist that unequal distribution be supported by fact-based inquiries. Basically, where one spouse receives a disproportionate share, “the trial court is required to make findings to justify the disparity,” and a “glaring discrepancy must be supported by findings based on the record.” Boutwell v. Adams, 920 So. 2d 151, 153.
What Counts as Dissipation in Florida Divorces?
As just stated, Florida courts approach dissipation as fact specific. Ordinary disagreements over spending are not sufficient to trigger dissipation; it is not simply where one spouse is upset that the other spent their money in a way he or she did not like.
In Florida, what counts as dissipation is most often defined as situations “where one spouse uses marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820, 823; Beers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109, 115.
In practice, I see that courts tend to focus on three key questions: who benefited from the spending, whether the purpose for the spending was related to the marriage, and whether the spending occurred while the marriage was irrevocably breaking down.
This is part of the reason why dissipation is not just about whether one spouse is simply angry. For example, a spouse can be upset about a purchase, trip, or investment; however, Florida law requires more. There must be a substantial connection between the spending and the depletion of marital assets. As Murray v. Murray explains, “[m]isconduct of a party, however, will not justify an unequal distribution of assets absent evidence demonstrating a sufficient relationship between the misconduct and the dissipation of assets.” 636 So. 2d 536, 538.
Common Examples of Dissipation in Florida Divorces
The most obvious example of dissipation in a Florida divorce is spending marital money on an affair. However, it is not the only example.
In my Collier County, Florida divorce law practice, dissipation allegations can involve unusual debt accumulation, secret accounts, consistent unexplained cash withdrawals, unknown transfers, or major purchases that benefited only one spouse after the marriage had already broken down.
Spending on an affair is an easy example for most people to understand because the non-marital purpose factor is evident. Gifts, jewelry, hotel charges, restaurant bills, and rent payments tied to an extra-marital affair all fit within the idea of marital money being used for a purpose unrelated to the marriage.
In Romano v. Romano, the court held that where the husband admitted spending at least $2,840 in marital funds on his mistress, that depletion could support unequal distribution. The court stated: “[w]here marital misconduct results in a depletion or dissipation of marital assets, such misconduct can serve as a basis for an unequal division of marital property or can be assigned to the spending spouse as part of that spouse’s equitable distribution.” 632 So. 2d 207, 210.
Similarly, in Rabbath v. Farid, the court found “financial records, which detailed extensive travel and gift expenses for him and his mistress,” and affirmed the trial court’s unequal distribution decision. 4 So. 3d 778, 780.
I want to be clear: dissipation is not limited to affairs. There are many situations where a spouse may also dissipate marital assets through personal spending that offers no marital benefit. However, the key inquiry remains the same. The question is whether there was marital money intentionally used for a non-marital purpose while the marriage was breaking down.
Dissipation Is Not Limited to Adultery (But Adultery Often Provides the Proof)
To be clear, in a Florida divorce, dissipation allegations are not simply adultery claims in disguise. Florida courts differentiate between financial harm and moral misconduct. What does this mean? It means that the focus is not on whether a spouse behaved badly but on whether marital resources were depleted.
Rabbath essentially says this in direct terms: “[a]dultery can be considered in fashioning an unequal distribution of assets and liabilities to the extent the marital misconduct depleted marital resources.” 4 So. 3d at 780. Put another way, the affair itself is not the issue. The money spent on the affair is the issue.
I usually see that this is why these allegations so often turn on documentation. Credit-card records, bank statements, travel receipts, and similar documents are key pieces of information that transform suspicion into proof. In Florida divorce cases where affairs are alleged, and dissipation is granted, a court is not reacting to morality in the abstract but is reacting to financial evidence.
Proving Dissipation in a Florida Divorce
Under Florida law, dissipation is narrow, but that is intentional because equitable distribution is not supposed to transform into a trial over every bad financial decision made during the marriage.
Florida courts have repeatedly rejected the idea that overspending or poor judgment, by itself, equals dissipation. In Murray, the court explained that “[e]xpenditures and investment decisions not rising to the level of misconduct also will not normally support an unequal distribution of assets.” 636 So. 2d at 538.
Branch v. Branch states the same idea: “[a]s a general rule, expenditures and investment decisions which do not rise to the level of misconduct will not support an unequal distribution of marital assets.” 775 So. 2d 406, 407.
And Lopez v. Lopez hits that point again. There, the court explained that the required misconduct is “an intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset for one party’s own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage, not simply mismanagement or squandering of funds in a way that the other spouse disapproves.” 135 So. 3d 326, 329 (quoting Roth v. Roth, 973 So. 2d 580, 585 (citing Segall v. Segall, 708 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla. 4th Vitalis v. Vitalis, 799 So. 2d 1127, 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA DCA 1998); Levy v. Levy, 900 So. 2d 737, 746).
That is an important limitation on a Florida divorce. A spouse is allowed to be immature, impulsive, careless, and reckless without meeting Florida’s standard for dissipation. The doctrine is focused on intentional depletion of the marital estate, not ordinary bad financial decision making.
In Walker v. Walker, the appellate court explained that, to determine dissipation, the trial court had to make “a specific finding of intentional misconduct based on evidence showing that the marital funds were used for one party’s ‘own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.’” 85 So. 3d 553, 555 (quoting Belford v. Belford, 51 So. 3d 1259, 1260-61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting Roth, 973 So. 2d at 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)).
Even further, the court in Walker emphasized that “[m]isconduct is not shown by ‘mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves.’” Id ((quoting Roth, 973 So. 2d at 585 (stating there “must be evidence of spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset”)). Since the record was “devoid of any evidence of misconduct,” the dissipation finding could not stand. Id.
That rule aligns with Florida statutes. Any distribution of marital assets and liabilities “shall be supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in subsection (1).” § 61.075(3), Fla. Stat.. Basically, where dissipation is used to argue for unequal distribution, there must be a factual basis for it. I often don’t see dissipation disputes won with broad accusations that one spouse “wasted money” or “hid assets.” That is usually insufficient.
In reality, these claims often turn on financial records. What usually matters most are bank statements, credit-card statements, tax returns, loan records, and similar documentation. Without that actual evidence, I see these cases collapse into a credibility contest.
I don’t mean to say that proof of missing money automatically equals dissipation. It just means that failure to explain substantial missing funds can be substantial evidence when it is combined with proof of non-marital use.
And once again, the judgment must be supported by findings. § 61.075(3), Florida Statutes, states that factual findings “based on competent substantial evidence,” are required.
What is the Timeframe for Dissipation in a Florida Divorce?
Florida’s dissipation statute provides an important time limit, but the rule is not quite as straightforward as it may first seem.
§ 61.075(1)(i) makes a court consider “[t]he intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition.” The two-year period is often the first screening question in a Florida divorce that is dealing with a dissipation analysis.
In times where the alleged misconduct occurred within that statutory period, then a Florida court must consider it as one of the equitable-distribution factors. However, that does not necessarily mean conduct outside the two-year period is irrelevant.
But…There’s a Catchall
Florida’s equitable distribution statute also provides a catchall factor: “[a]ny other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.” § 61.075(1)(j), Fla. Stat.
Florida courts use this catchall to recognize that more remote dissipation may still be a factor when fairness requires it.
In Beers v. Beers, the court decided that § 61.075(1)(i) “does not operate as a two-year statute of limitation.” 724 So. 2d 109, 114. Instead, it held that the trial court may consider more remote depletion of marital assets under subsection (j) when doing so is necessary “to do equity and justice between the parties.” Id. at 115.
The same reasoning was adopted in Monticello v. Monticello, which stated that the two-year period “does not bar a trial court from considering, as an ‘other factor,’ dissipation of marital assets which occurs prior to the two-year period preceding the filing of the petition for dissolution.” 967 So. 2d 390.
And Martinez later came to the same conclusion as Beers, reasoning that for cases involving dissipation occurring more than two years before filing, § 61.075(1)(j) “allows, but does not require, the court to consider the more remote dissipation.” 219 So. 3d at 261.
So I find that the best way to understand the Florida timeframe is to look at it as a two-year window in § 61.075(1)(i), which creates a mandatory dissipation factor; however, it is not an absolute cutoff. In the right situation, earlier depletion may still be considered under § 61.075(1)(j).
Attorney’s Fees and Legitimate Living Expenses In A Florida Divorce
I believe it is important to mention how Florida law treats attorney’s fees and ordinary living expenses.
Florida does not consider each and every post-separation depletion of funds as dissipation. In Lopez, the court held that “[o]ne party’s use of an asset out of necessity and for reasonable living expenses does not justify an award of a depleted asset absent evidence of misconduct.” 135 So. 3d at 328. Further, it stated that “[a]ttorney’s fees spent on the dissolution of the marriage are considered reasonable living expenses.” Id. at 329.
That is an essential point. In Florida divorces, the question is not merely whether marital money was spent during the case. Rather, the question becomes whether the spending was intentionally wrongful or unrelated. § 61.075(5)(d)3 explicitly recognizes that a party may need access to funds during the case to pay “a reasonable amount of the attorney fees, court costs, or other suit money for maintaining or defending a proceeding under this chapter.” Put simply, Florida law holds the idea that litigation-related spending is not automatically waste.
What Happens After Dissipation Is Proven In A Florida Divorce
Once dissipation is proven in a Florida divorce, then a court may account for that loss in equitable distribution.
Under § 61.075(1), the court starts with equality but may make an unequal distribution when justified by the statutory factors. § 61.075(1)(i). Under § 61.075(10), “[t]o do equity between the parties,” a court may also order a monetary payment to effectuate the equitable division of marital assets and liabilities.
That does not mean a court during a Florida divorce must painstakingly “refund” every dollar. Equitable distribution is still driven by fairness, not rigidity. The main point is that a court has tools at its disposal to prevent one spouse from benefiting from intentional depletion of the marital estate.
Defending a Dissipation Claim in Florida
Dissipation claims can be serious, but in my Southwest Florida divorce law practice, I do not find them impossible to defend.
First, a defense may be to challenge spending that serves a legitimate marital or household purpose. For instance, if the money went toward attorney’s fees, family bills, children’s expenses, or living expenses, then the spending may not qualify as dissipation at all. Lopez, 135 So. 3d at 328, 329.
Second, a party could argue about timing. If the conduct falls outside the two years established in § 61.075(1)(i), then the allegation becomes more discretionary. Remote dissipation may still be considered under § 61.075(1)(j), but it is not mandatory. Beers, 724 So. 2d at 114, 115.
Finally, a defense may be that there is a lack of proof of intentional misconduct. Mismanagement, simple squandering, or ordinary financial disagreement is not sufficient by itself. Lopez, 135 So. 3d at 329 (quoting Roth, 973 So. 2d at 585 (citing Segall, 708 So. 2d at 986 (Fla. 4th Vitalis, 799 So. 2d at 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA DCA 1998); Levy, 900 So. 2d at 746). In a Florida divorce, there still needs to be evidence that shows intentional use of marital funds for one party’s own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage.
The Bottom Line In Determining Dissipation In A Florida Divorce
Florida may be a no-fault divorce state, but financial misconduct can still matter during marital property division.
Dissipation occurs in circumstances where one spouse intentionally uses marital funds for a non-marital purpose during the breakdown of the marriage. Florida law does not punish every bad financial decision, yet there is no doubt that addresses intentional depletion of the marital estate.
In most cases, I find that the outcome comes down to timing, intent, and documentation. Claims of dissipation almost never succeed without clear financial records that show what happened to the money.
When the evidence shows intentional depletion of marital assets, a Florida court has the power to account for those losses, then adjust the distribution of property to ensure fairness.
Cases and Statutes Referenced
Florida Statutes – Fla. Stat. § 61.052 (Dissolution of Marriage)
Florida Statutes – Fla. Stat. § 61.075 (Equitable Distribution of Marital Assets and Liabilities)
Beers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
Boutwell v. Adams, 920 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
Lopez v. Lopez, 135 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
Martinez v. Martinez, 219 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
Monticello v. Monticello, 967 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
Murray v. Murray, 636 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
Rabbath v. Farid, 4 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
Romano v. Romano, 632 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
Walker v. Walker, 85 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
Russell Knight is an attorney licensed in Florida since 2018 and in Illinois since 2006, representing clients in Naples, Florida (and Lee County, Florida). Russell Knight exclusively practices family law and has handled hundreds of divorce cases involving dissipation claims.
