When a marriage is falling apart, financial behavior sometimes changes. A spouse who senses a divorce is coming may begin spending marital money in ways they never would have during a healthy marriage. Assets get transferred. Money disappears. Accounts are drained. Credit cards run up. Sometimes this happens deliberately; sometimes it is rationalization or poor judgment under stress. Whatever the motivation, Florida divorce law has a framework for addressing it.
Dissipation of marital assets is the legal concept that allows a court to hold one spouse accountable for the misuse or destruction of marital property during the period leading up to or during the divorce proceedings. In high-asset divorces, where the amounts involved can be substantial, dissipation claims are both more common and more consequential than in cases with more modest estates. Understanding what counts as dissipation, how it is proved, and what a court can do about it is essential for anyone in a Tampa divorce who suspects a spouse has been spending down the marital estate.
What the Florida Statutes Say About Dissipation
Florida’s equitable distribution statute, Section 61.075 of the Florida Statutes, is the legal framework governing how marital assets are divided in a divorce. The statute lists the factors a court must consider when distributing marital assets and liabilities equitably, and one of those factors is directly on point for dissipation claims.
Florida Statute 61.075(1)(i) requires courts to consider “the intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing of the petition” as a factor in the equitable distribution of the marital estate.
Several elements of this statutory language deserve attention.
The two-year lookback period is significant. Florida courts can consider dissipation that occurred up to two years before the divorce petition was filed, not just dissipation that happened after filing. This means that a spouse who began spending down marital assets in anticipation of a divorce, even before formally initiating the proceeding, can be held accountable for that behavior.
The statute specifies conduct that occurred “after the filing of the petition or within two years prior to the filing.” This framing establishes that conduct before the two-year window is generally not subject to the dissipation analysis under the statute, though courts retain equitable authority that may extend beyond strict statutory limits in egregious cases.
The word “intentional” in the statute matters. Courts look at whether the dissipation was deliberate rather than simply the result of poor financial management or ordinary life expenses. The intent requirement is one of the key factual issues in any dissipation claim.
A Tampa high asset divorce lawyer presenting a dissipation claim needs to address each of these elements specifically, producing evidence that the spending or transfers were intentional, occurred within the statutory period, and depleted marital assets that would otherwise have been available for division.
What Courts Actually Consider Dissipation
Not every bad financial decision during a marriage qualifies as dissipation, and not every spending that one spouse disagrees with is actionable. Florida courts have developed a body of case law that defines what the dissipation concept encompasses and what it does not.
Affairs and Related Expenditures
One of the most common contexts in which dissipation claims arise is when a spouse has been involved in an extramarital affair and has spent marital funds on the other person. Gifts, hotel expenses, travel, jewelry, and similar expenditures made for a romantic partner outside the marriage are among the most clearly recognized forms of dissipation in Florida courts.
The reasoning is straightforward: marital funds spent on someone outside the marriage for purposes unrelated to the marriage or the family were diverted from the marital estate for the personal benefit of one spouse at the expense of the other. Courts have consistently found that this kind of expenditure qualifies as dissipation.
Gambling
Gambling losses represent another recognized category of dissipation in Florida. A spouse who takes marital funds to a casino, loses them, and depletes the marital estate in the process has engaged in conduct that courts have treated as dissipation. The analysis looks at the pattern of gambling behavior, the amounts involved, and whether the gambling represents a genuine problem or an occasional recreational activity that both spouses knew about and tacitly accepted.
In high-asset divorces, gambling losses can be substantial, and the documentation required to prove the extent of the losses, including casino records, bank statements, and credit card records, is often extensive. A Florida high asset divorce attorney pursuing a gambling dissipation claim will work with forensic accountants to develop the complete financial picture.
Substance Abuse
Expenditures associated with substance abuse, whether alcohol, drugs, or other substances, can qualify as dissipation when they represent a significant drain on the marital estate. The analysis looks at whether the spending was substantial, whether it was associated with conduct that damaged the marriage, and whether it reflects the kind of intentional disregard for the marital estate that the dissipation doctrine is designed to address.
Transfer of Assets to Third Parties
Transferring marital assets to family members, friends, or business associates outside the ordinary course of business can be treated as dissipation. A spouse who transfers money to a sibling, gifts property to a parent, or moves funds to an account controlled by a business associate in anticipation of a divorce may find those transfers subject to a dissipation claim.
The timing of the transfer is critical. Transfers that occur close to the filing of the divorce petition, or after the marriage has clearly broken down, are more likely to be viewed as dissipation than transfers made years earlier in a period when the marriage was functioning normally.
Deliberate Destruction of Property
Physical destruction of marital property, whether out of anger, spite, or deliberate financial planning, is recognized as dissipation. A spouse who damages property, destroys items of value, or allows property to deteriorate through deliberate neglect in the period before or during a divorce may face a dissipation claim for the value destroyed.
Business Decisions That Harm the Marital Estate
For high-asset divorces involving business interests, dissipation claims can arise from business decisions made during the divorce period that diminish the value of a marital business. Sweetheart deals with related parties, deferred contracts that push income outside the divorce period, excessive compensation to family members, and similar maneuvers can be challenged as dissipation of a business asset that is part of the marital estate.
This is an area where the line between legitimate business decisions and dissipation can be genuinely unclear, and expert testimony is often required to establish what constitutes reasonable business conduct versus deliberate depletion of marital value.
What Courts Do Not Consider Dissipation
Understanding what does not qualify as dissipation is as important as understanding what does. Several categories of spending that one spouse might object to are not legally actionable as dissipation.
Ordinary Living Expenses
Money spent on reasonable living expenses during the period leading up to a divorce, including housing, food, transportation, and similar costs, is not dissipation. Each spouse is entitled to maintain a reasonable standard of living even when a divorce is pending, and ordinary expenditures in furtherance of that purpose do not constitute the intentional depletion of marital assets.
The challenge in high-asset cases is that “ordinary living expenses” for a wealthy couple may look extravagant from the outside. A spouse who is accustomed to a high standard of living and continues to maintain that standard during the divorce period has not necessarily dissipated marital assets, even if the amounts involved are substantial.
Agreed-Upon Expenditures
Spending that both spouses knew about and agreed to, even if it involved significant sums, is generally not dissipation. A couple who agreed to invest in a vacation home, take an expensive vacation, or make a significant purchase together cannot later characterize that spending as one spouse’s dissipation.
The evidence of prior mutual agreement can sometimes be contested, and what one spouse claims was agreed and what the other remembers can differ. Documentation of joint financial decisions is relevant in these situations.
Normal Business Losses
Business losses that occur in the ordinary course of operating a business are not dissipation simply because they reduce the value of a marital business asset. A spouse who runs a business that has a bad year during the divorce period has not necessarily dissipated a marital asset unless the losses resulted from deliberate or reckless conduct outside the normal range of business risk.
Pre-Marital Spending
The dissipation doctrine applies to marital assets. Spending of nonmarital funds, including inherited money, gifts, or premarital savings that have been maintained separately, is not subject to the dissipation analysis as it relates to the marital estate.
How Dissipation Claims Are Proved
Proving a dissipation claim in a Florida divorce requires a combination of financial documentation, forensic analysis, and sometimes circumstantial evidence that demonstrates both that the spending occurred and that it was intentional in the way the statute requires.
The threshold question is establishing what happened. Bank statements, credit card records, casino records, financial institution records, real estate transaction records, and business financial records are the primary documentary sources for dissipation claims. In a high-asset divorce, obtaining these records through formal discovery is often necessary, particularly when the suspected dissipating spouse has not been transparent about finances.
Once the spending or transfers are documented, the analysis shifts to characterization. Was the spending within the range of ordinary living expenses, or was it clearly outside the norm for this couple? Was a transfer to a third party a genuine gift or a return of a loan, or was it a disguised transfer designed to put assets beyond the reach of the divorce? Was a business decision a legitimate exercise of business judgment or a deliberate maneuver to reduce the marital estate’s value?
Forensic accountants play a central role in dissipation analysis in high-asset cases. A forensic accountant can trace the flow of funds through multiple accounts, identify transfers that appear designed to conceal assets, analyze business financial records for irregularities, and present findings in a form that can be used in court. The cost of forensic accounting in a significant dissipation case is substantial but is generally worth the investment when the amounts at issue are significant.
Timeline evidence is also important. Dissipation that occurs after the marriage clearly broke down, after the parties separated, or close to the filing of the divorce petition is more likely to be treated as intentional dissipation than spending that occurred in an earlier period. The timing of the spending relative to the deterioration of the marriage is relevant context that courts consider.
A high asset divorce lawyer in Tampa handling a significant dissipation claim will build the evidentiary record carefully, working with forensic accountants and using formal discovery to develop the complete picture before presenting the claim to the court.
What Courts Do When They Find Dissipation
When a Florida court finds that one spouse has dissipated marital assets, the primary remedy is an adjustment to the equitable distribution of the remaining marital estate. The dissipating spouse receives less of what remains to compensate for what was dissipated.
The specific mechanism is that the court treats the dissipated assets as if they still exist and were available for distribution. The dissipating spouse’s share of the actual remaining assets is reduced by the amount of the dissipation, so that the other spouse receives a greater portion of what is left. The end result is that the dissipating spouse bears the financial consequence of the dissipation rather than the innocent spouse.
In practice, this can mean that the dissipating spouse receives significantly less in the property distribution than they would have received if no dissipation had occurred. In a case where one spouse dissipated several hundred thousand dollars, the other spouse may receive a corresponding increase in their share of the marital estate to make them whole.
The court’s ability to remedy dissipation is limited by the size of the remaining marital estate. If the dissipation was so extensive that there is not enough left in the marital estate to fully compensate the innocent spouse through an unequal distribution, the remedy may be incomplete. This is one reason why early identification and documentation of dissipation, and when possible early action to preserve marital assets, is important.
Courts can also consider dissipation in the alimony analysis. A spouse who dissipated marital assets may be ordered to pay alimony at a higher level or for a longer duration to compensate for the depletion of the estate that would otherwise have provided for the other spouse.
Contempt proceedings and sanctions are available for dissipation that occurs in violation of court orders. Florida courts can enter injunctive relief early in a divorce proceeding that prohibits either party from dissipating, transferring, or encumbering marital assets. A spouse who violates such an order may face contempt sanctions, including monetary penalties.
A Florida high asset divorce attorney whose client is the victim of dissipation will pursue all available remedies, including seeking an early injunction to stop ongoing dissipation, conducting thorough discovery to document the full extent of the dissipation, and presenting a comprehensive dissipation analysis to the court.
Protecting Against Dissipation During a Divorce
For spouses who are concerned that the other party may begin dissipating assets when a divorce becomes imminent or is filed, early legal action can provide meaningful protection.
Automatic temporary injunctions in Florida divorce proceedings prohibit both parties from dissipating, destroying, transferring, or encumbering marital assets without the other party’s consent or a court order. These injunctions take effect when the divorce petition is filed and served, and violation of them is a basis for contempt proceedings.
Early discovery focused on financial accounts, business records, and recent transactions can establish a baseline against which subsequent dissipation can be identified. A forensic accountant retained early in the proceeding can monitor financial activity and flag suspicious transactions as they occur rather than discovering them months later.
Motions for temporary relief can address specific assets that are at immediate risk. If a spouse is believed to be actively transferring business assets or liquidating investment accounts, an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order can halt that activity while the court addresses the issue more fully.
For a Tampa high asset divorce lawyer whose client has reason to believe dissipation is occurring or is about to occur, early and aggressive action to document and preserve the marital estate is the most important immediate priority.
Frequently Asked Questions
How far back can a Florida court look at spending when evaluating a dissipation claim?
Florida Statute 61.075(1)(i) establishes a two-year lookback period, allowing courts to consider dissipation that occurred within two years before the divorce petition was filed or after the petition was filed. Conduct outside the two-year window is generally not subject to the statutory dissipation analysis, though courts retain some equitable discretion in egregious cases. This means that spending or transfers that occurred more than two years before the divorce petition are typically not actionable as dissipation under the statute.
Does my spouse’s gambling have to be secret to qualify as dissipation?
Not necessarily. Even if gambling was known to both spouses during the marriage, significant losses that represent a departure from the couple’s normal financial behavior and that occurred during the dissipation lookback period can be treated as dissipation. The analysis looks at the nature and extent of the losses relative to the marital estate and whether the gambling was within the range of conduct that both spouses implicitly or explicitly accepted as a normal part of their lifestyle. Chronic, high-level gambling losses that substantially depleted the marital estate are more likely to be treated as dissipation than occasional recreational gambling that both spouses were aware of.
Can I get a court order to stop my spouse from spending marital money during the divorce?
Yes. Florida divorce proceedings include automatic temporary injunctions that take effect when the petition is filed and served, prohibiting both parties from dissipating, destroying, transferring, or encumbering marital assets without the other party’s consent or court order. In addition to the automatic injunctions, a party who has specific evidence that dissipation is ongoing can seek a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief from the court. A Florida high asset divorce attorney can advise on what relief is available and how to pursue it most effectively given the specific circumstances.
What happens if my spouse transferred assets to family members before I filed for divorce?
Transfers to third parties within the two-year lookback period can be treated as dissipation if they were made with the intent to deplete the marital estate rather than for legitimate purposes. The characterization of the transfer, whether it was a genuine gift, a return of a loan, or a disguised dissipation, is a factual question that courts evaluate based on the circumstances. Transfers made to family members close in time to the deterioration of the marriage or the filing of the divorce petition are particularly subject to scrutiny. A Tampa high asset divorce lawyer can assess whether a specific transfer is likely to be treated as dissipation and advise on how to pursue that claim.
What if the dissipation happened in a business I do not have access to?
Business dissipation claims in high-asset divorces frequently involve a spouse who operates a business that the other spouse does not have direct visibility into. In those situations, formal discovery is essential. Requests for business financial records, tax returns, profit and loss statements, payroll records, bank statements, and contracts can reveal irregular transactions, deferred income, sweetheart deals with related parties, and other forms of business dissipation. A forensic accountant retained by the innocent spouse can analyze the business records and identify transactions that appear designed to reduce the business’s reported value or to divert business income outside the marital estate.
Can dissipation affect alimony in a Florida divorce?
Yes. In addition to adjusting the equitable distribution of the remaining marital estate, a court may consider dissipation in the alimony analysis. A spouse who dissipated assets that would otherwise have been available to support both parties may face a higher alimony obligation or a longer alimony duration as a consequence. The extent to which dissipation affects alimony depends on the specific facts of the case and the nature and amount of the dissipation relative to the overall marital estate.
What is the difference between dissipation and simply spending money during a long marriage?
The key distinction is intent and timing. Ordinary spending during the course of a healthy marriage, even substantial spending on luxury items, entertainment, or lifestyle, is not dissipation. Dissipation requires intentional conduct that depletes the marital estate during the period when the marriage has broken down or within two years before the divorce petition was filed. A couple who spent freely on lifestyle expenses throughout a twenty-year marriage has not dissipated the marital estate; a spouse who begins transferring funds and making unusual expenditures after the marriage collapses has engaged in conduct that the dissipation doctrine is designed to address.
Dissipation of marital assets is one of the more consequential financial issues in a high-asset Florida divorce, both because the amounts involved can be significant and because the evidence needed to prove it requires thorough financial investigation. For individuals in Tampa who believe their spouse has been spending down the marital estate, early action to document what has happened and prevent further dissipation is the most important step they can take. Working with a Tampa high asset divorce lawyer who understands both the legal framework and the forensic accounting tools needed to prove a dissipation claim is the foundation of an effective response.
Written by Damien McKinney, Founding Partner
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group Family & Divorce Lawyers, 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.