The January 22, 2025 opinion in Michener v. Michener from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third Districtaddresses a novel and emotionally charged issue in equitable distribution. What happens when one spouse intentionally destroys the other spouse’s nonmarital property during a divorce? The answer, according to the Third District, is nuanced. Trial courts may consider the misconduct, but they must still ground any financial remedy in competent, substantial evidence.
For divorce litigation throughout Florida, including high-conflict cases handled by a Tampa divorce lawyer, this decision reinforces two core principles. Equity matters, but fairness must remain tethered to proof. And even when misconduct is clear, courts cannot award financial windfalls untethered from evidence.
This article explains the facts, the appellate court’s reasoning, and the practical lessons Michener v. Michener offers for Florida divorce cases.
The Facts: A Marriage, a Collection, and Spoliation
April Michener and Michael Michener were married for eleven years. After the parties separated, the former wife destroyed or disposed of a significant portion of the former husband’s nonmarital memorabilia collection.
The collection included books, Star Wars toys, celebrity and family photographs, a sketch of Cal Ripken Jr., a vintage poster, a handmade football, and an engraved watch. There was also uncertainty as to whether additional items, such as baseball cards and NASCAR collectibles, were affected.
On his financial affidavit, the former husband valued the destroyed items at $14,500. At trial, however, he testified that many of the items were irreplaceable and therefore priceless.
For a Tampa divorce lawyer, this fact pattern immediately raises a difficult issue. Florida’s equitable distribution statute expressly addresses dissipation of marital assets, but it does not specifically address destruction of nonmarital property.
The Trial Court’s Remedy
Both parties were federal employees participating in Thrift Savings Plans (TSPs). At trial:
- The former husband’s TSP was valued at approximately $1,078,810
- The former wife’s TSP was valued at approximately $803,257
Rather than equally dividing the TSP accounts, the trial court ordered each party to keep their own account in full. The court justified this unequal distribution by awarding the former husband an equalizing payment of approximately $137,776. This figure roughly mirrored the disparity between the TSP account balances and was expressly tied to the former wife’s destruction of the memorabilia.
The trial court’s ruling effectively converted the spoliation of personal property into a six-figure financial consequence.
From the perspective of a Tampa divorce lawyer, the legal question becomes whether that remedy was supported by evidence or whether it crossed the line into punitive redistribution.
The Appeal and Standard of Review
The former wife appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by awarding an equalizing payment far exceeding the proven value of the destroyed items. The former husband cross-appealed on an unrelated retirement issue.
The Third District reviewed the equitable distribution ruling under the abuse of discretion standard. While trial courts enjoy broad discretion in fashioning equitable remedies, that discretion is not unlimited.
Equity Allows Consideration of Misconduct
The appellate court began by reaffirming a foundational principle of Florida family law. Dissolution proceedings are equitable in nature, governed by fairness rather than rigid rules.
Section 61.075 requires courts to begin with a presumption of equal distribution but allows unequal distribution when justified by statutory factors. Among those factors are:
- Contributions to marital and nonmarital assets
- Dissipation, waste, or destruction of assets
- Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice
Although the statute does not explicitly reference destruction of nonmarital property, the Third District held that such conduct may be considered under the broad catchall provision allowing courts to do equity and justice between the parties.
In other words, the trial court was not wrong to consider the former wife’s actions at all.
For a Tampa divorce lawyer, this is an important takeaway. Misconduct involving nonmarital assets is not automatically irrelevant.
Where the Trial Court Went Too Far
Despite agreeing that the destruction of nonmarital property could be considered, the Third District found a critical flaw in the trial court’s remedy.
The only concrete valuation evidence in the record placed the value of the destroyed memorabilia at $14,500. While the former husband testified the items were priceless to him, Florida law is clear. Sentimental value cannot override financial fairness.
Without additional competent, substantial evidence establishing a higher value, the trial court could not equate the loss of memorabilia with a $137,776 unequal distribution of retirement assets.
The appellate court concluded that doing so created an unwarranted windfall and was unsupported by the evidence.
A Tampa divorce lawyer would recognize this as a classic appellate correction. Equity does not authorize speculative punishment.
Sentimental Value Has Limits
One of the most important aspects of the decision is the court’s reaffirmation that sentimental attachment does not translate into financial valuation.
Florida courts consistently hold that emotional or sentimental value cannot justify disproportionate financial awards in equitable distribution. Courts must rely on evidence of actual value, not subjective loss.
This principle is especially relevant in cases involving family heirlooms, collections, or personal property destroyed during emotional disputes.
For a Tampa divorce lawyer, the lesson is clear. If a party seeks compensation for destroyed property, evidence of value matters.
The Appellate Outcome
The Third District affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and reversed in part. The court reversed the equalizing payment tied to the spoliation of nonmarital property and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, the trial court must fashion a remedy that reflects the proven value of the destroyed items rather than an unsupported approximation based on retirement account disparities.
The cross-appeal regarding inconsistent death provisions in retirement benefits was summarily affirmed.
Why This Case Matters for Florida Divorce Litigation
Michener v. Michener addresses a gap many practitioners encounter. While Florida law clearly addresses dissipation of marital assets, destruction of nonmarital property falls into a gray area.
This decision clarifies that:
- Courts may consider intentional destruction of nonmarital property
- Remedies must still be grounded in competent, substantial evidence
- Sentimental value alone is insufficient
- Equity does not permit punitive financial windfalls
For high-asset and high-conflict cases, including those handled by a Tampa divorce lawyer, this balance is critical.
Practical Lessons for Divorce Cases
Several practical lessons emerge from this case:
- Document and value personal property early
- If destruction occurs, preserve evidence of actual value
- Do not assume misconduct will justify unlimited financial relief
- Expect appellate scrutiny when remedies exceed proven loss
Trial courts may act to restore fairness, but they must do so carefully.
A Broader View of Equitable Distribution
The Third District’s opinion reinforces the idea that equitable distribution is not about punishment. It is about restoring balance.
Even when one party’s conduct is troubling, courts must remain disciplined. Financial remedies must correspond to evidence, not emotion.
For a Tampa divorce lawyer, this case is a powerful reminder that equity is measured, not reactive.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court penalize a spouse for destroying nonmarital property?
Yes, but only to the extent necessary to achieve equity and only with evidence of value.
Does Florida law address destruction of nonmarital property directly?
No, but courts may consider it under the catchall provision allowing equity and justice.
Can sentimental value justify a large financial award?
No. Sentimental value cannot replace proof of actual value.
What kind of evidence is needed?
Appraisals, receipts, expert testimony, or other competent evidence of value.
Why is this important for Tampa divorce cases?
High-conflict divorces often involve allegations of destroyed property. This case sets limits on remedies.
Talk With a Tampa Divorce Lawyer About High-Conflict Property Disputes
If your divorce involves allegations of destroyed property, unequal distribution, or claims of misconduct, speaking with a Tampa divorce lawyer can help you understand how Florida courts balance equity with evidence. Michener v. Michener shows that while misconduct matters, proof still controls the outcome.
Divorce proceedings often involve high stakes and strong emotions. McKinney Law Group helps Tampa clients stay grounded and informed while pursuing practical resolutions.
Call 813-428-3400 to get started.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.