A recent 2025 decision from the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, Jones v. Jones, highlights one of the most critical and non-negotiable rules in a divorce: a trial court’s mandatory duty to provide detailed, written findings for its equitable distribution plan. In this case, a Former Wife appealed a final judgment, arguing the trial court had failed to properly follow the law in dividing the parties’ property. The appellate court agreed, finding the judgment was so lacking in detail that it constituted “fundamental error on the face of the judgment.”
The trial court had awarded numerous assets, including real estate, bank accounts, and businesses, to the Husband without classifying them as marital or nonmarital. It valued the marital home at $300,000 without explaining the basis for this valuation. It also divided several of the Wife’s retirement accounts without first determining their full value or explaining how it arrived at her share. The appellate court reversed the entire property division and sent the case back, reminding the trial court that it must follow the multi-step process of identifying, classifying, valuing, and distributing all assets and liabilities with specific, written findings. This case is a crucial reminder for anyone in Tampa that a “final judgment” without this “work shown” is not a valid final judgment at all.
What is Equitable Distribution?
In Florida, the process of dividing a couple’s assets and liabilities upon divorce is called “equitable distribution.” This is often the most complex and contentious part of any divorce proceeding. The state’s guiding principle is that a marital partnership is like a business partnership. Both parties contributed to the acquisition of assets, and upon dissolution, those assets should be divided fairly.
To achieve this fairness and create a legally sound judgment, Florida law requires the court to follow a strict, four-step process. This is not optional, and as the Jones case demonstrates, failure to adhere to these steps will result in a reversal on appeal. A final judgment that simply “awards” assets without any explanation is invalid.
The four mandatory steps are:
- Identification: The court must first identify all assets and liabilities, both marital and nonmarital.
- Classification: The court must then classify each identified item as either a “marital” asset/liability (subject to division) or a “nonmarital” asset/liability (which remains the separate property of one spouse).
- Valuation: The court must assign a specific monetary value to all marital assets and liabilities.
- Distribution: Finally, the court must distribute the marital assets and liabilities between the parties in a way that is “equitable,” or fair.
The Jones v. Jones appeal serves as a perfect checklist for how this process can go wrong when a court cuts corners. Understanding each of these steps is essential for anyone facing a divorce in Hillsborough County.
Step 1: Identification of Assets and Liabilities
The foundation of any equitable distribution plan is a complete and accurate inventory. You cannot divide what you do not know exists. This “identification” phase is what most people know as the discovery process.
In any Tampa divorce, both parties are required by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure to file a “Financial Affidavit.” This sworn document requires each party to list all their assets, liabilities, income, and expenses under penalty of perjury.
This is just the starting point. The identification phase also involves “Mandatory Disclosure,” where parties must automatically exchange a host of financial documents, including:
- Bank, brokerage, and retirement account statements
- Pay stubs and tax returns
- Deeds to real estate
- Loan applications and credit card statements
- Business records
If one party is uncooperative or suspected of hiding assets, a Tampa divorce lawyer will engage in more formal discovery, such as sending interrogatories (written questions), requests to produce documents, or taking depositions (sworn testimony) of the other party or their accountant.
The goal is to create a comprehensive balance sheet listing everything the couple owns and owes, from the marital home and vehicles down to the store credit card and the 401(k) loan. In Jones, the court’s judgment was already flawed at this step, as it was unclear if all assets had been properly identified before they were haphazardly distributed.
Step 2: Classification as Marital or Nonmarital
This is the most critical step and often the most litigated. An asset’s classification determines whether it is “on the table” for division or “off the table.”
Nonmarital Assets (Separate Property): A court cannot give one spouse’s nonmarital property to the other. Generally, nonmarital assets include:
- Assets and liabilities acquired before the marriage.
- Assets acquired during the marriage as a gift (from a third party) or through inheritance, as long as they were kept separate.
- Income derived from nonmarital assets (e.g., rental income from a premarital condo), unless that income was relied upon or used as a marital resource.
- Assets and liabilities explicitly excluded by a valid prenuptial or postnuptial agreement.
Marital Assets (Subject to Division): This is the default category. Marital assets generally include:
- All assets and liabilities acquired during the marriage, regardless of whose name is on the title. (This is a common misconception in Tampa; if a car was bought during the marriage with marital funds, it is a marital asset, even if it is only in one spouse’s name).
- The “enhancement in value” or “appreciation” of a nonmarital asset if that enhancement resulted from the efforts of either spouse or the contribution of marital funds.
- All benefits and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement plans, 401(k)s, pensions, and profit-sharing plans.
The Jones v. Jones case shows how a court can fail this step. The trial judge simply deemed two properties (Sandy Hill and Quinebaug Camp) and their contents to be the Husband’s nonmarital assets. The judge provided no “findings of fact” to support this conclusion. Why were they nonmarital? Were they purchased before the marriage? Were they inherited? Did the Wife contribute marital funds to their upkeep or mortgage, giving her a marital interest?
By failing to explain why these assets were classified as nonmarital, the judge made it impossible for the appellate court to review the decision. A Tampa divorce lawyer would have argued that this lack of a factual basis is a fundamental error.
Furthermore, the Jones court “awarded” several other major assets to the Husband—a Cadillac, a business, brokerage accounts, and a pension—without classifying them at all. This is a complete failure to follow the statute. The court essentially skipped Step 2 entirely for these assets, a clear reversible error.
Step 3: Valuation of Marital Assets
Once the court has its “pot” of marital assets, it must assign a specific dollar value to every single one. Without a value, a 50/50 split is mathematically impossible.
This valuation must be based on “competent, substantial evidence.” This is a legal term that means real, reliable proof. A judge cannot simply guess, use a “Zestimate,” or accept one party’s unverified statement of value.
- For Real Estate: The proper evidence is a certified appraisal.
- For Bank Accounts: The evidence is the bank statement from the valuation date.
- For Businesses: This is highly complex and requires a “business valuation” performed by a forensic accountant.
- For Retirement Accounts: The evidence is the 401(k) or pension statement for the valuation date.
- For Vehicles: The evidence is typically a Kelley Blue Book or NADA guide printout.
The “valuation date” itself is a crucial point of law. The court has discretion to set the date. It is typically the date of the filing of the divorce petition, the date of the trial, or any other date the judge determines is fair under the circumstances.
The Jones case highlights two major valuation errors.
- Marital Home: The court valued the home at $300,000, but the judgment did not explain the basis for this value. Was there an appraisal? Did the parties agree (stipulate) to this value? Was it based on a tax assessment (which is not competent evidence of fair market value)? Without stating the evidentiary basis, the finding is invalid.
- Partial Accounts: The court awarded the Wife funds from three separate retirement and savings accounts but never made a finding as to the total value of those accounts. It is impossible to know if her share was equitable without knowing the value of the whole. This failure to value the asset before distributing it is another fundamental error.
An experienced Tampa divorce lawyer dedicates a significant portion of their trial preparation to gathering the “competent, substantial evidence” needed to prove the value of every asset, ensuring the final judgment is built on a solid, provable foundation.
Step 4: Distribution of Marital Assets
Only after all assets are identified, classified, and valued can the court perform the final step: distribution.
Florida law begins with a clear legal starting point: the distribution of marital assets and liabilities should be equal(50/50).
However, a court can order an unequal distribution if it finds a specific, legally justifiable reason to do so. The statute provides a list of factors the judge must consider, including:
- The contribution of each spouse to the marriage, including contributions as a homemaker and parent.
- The economic circumstances of each party.
- The duration of the marriage.
- Any interruption in the personal career or education of either spouse.
- The contribution of one spouse to the career or education of the other.
- The desirability of retaining any asset (like a business) free from the claim of the other.
- The “intentional dissipation” (waste or destruction) of marital assets after the petition was filed or within two years prior.
- Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.
If a judge decides to award an unequal (e.g., 60/40) distribution, they must make specific written findings explaining which of these factors justifies the deviation from the 50/50 presumption.
In Jones v. Jones, the appellate court sent the case back with a specific instruction: “in considering distribution, the court should begin with the statutory presumption that the distribution should be equal.” Because the trial judge failed to perform Steps 1, 2, and 3, any “distribution” it ordered was legally arbitrary and meaningless.
Why Are These Findings “Mandatory”?
The Jones court called the absence of these findings a “fundamental error.” This is strong legal language. It means the error is so severe that it invalidates the judgment, even if the parties’ lawyers did not object perfectly at trial.
These findings are mandatory for one simple reason: appellate review.
An appellate court’s job is not to conduct a new trial. Its job is to review the trial court’s judgment for legal errors. If a trial judge simply awards the house to the Husband and the 401(k) to the Wife with no explanation, the appellate court has no way of knowing why.
- Did the judge think the 401(k) was the Wife’s nonmarital property?
- Did the judge find the 401(k) and the house had the same value?
- Did the judge order an unequal distribution based on the Husband’s contribution to the marriage?
Without the written findings, the judgment is a “black box,” and the appellate court cannot perform its duty. The law forces trial judges to “show their work” so that a party who believes a mistake was made has a meaningful right to an appeal.
This rule is a powerful protection. It even applies in cases of a default, where one party fails to respond. A judge cannot just “give everything” to the petitioning spouse. The court still must go through the four steps and make the required findings to support its judgment.
Conclusion: The Final Judgment is Not the End
The Jones v. Jones decision is a powerful reminder that a final judgment must be more than just a list of who gets what. It must be a carefully reasoned legal document that complies with every step of the equitable distribution statute. The trial court’s failure to identify, classify, and value the parties’ assets before distributing them resulted in a judgment that was fundamentally flawed and ultimately, a waste of the parties’ time and money.
Equitable distribution is arguably the most technically demanding aspect of any divorce. Tracing nonmarital assets, valuing complex businesses or pensions, and arguing for or against an unequal distribution requires a deep understanding of the law and a meticulous approach to evidence.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce involving complex property division, it is essential to have an advocate on your side who understands these mandatory rules. A Tampa divorce lawyer can ensure your assets are properly identified, classified, and valued, and that any final judgment is built on a solid legal and factual foundation. Contact our office for a consultation to discuss the specific facts of your case and how we can protect your financial future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is equitable distribution in a Florida divorce? Equitable distribution is the four-step legal process of (1) identifying, (2) classifying, (3) valuing, and (4) distributing the assets and liabilities acquired by a couple during their marriage.
Does “equitable distribution” always mean a 50/50 “equal” split? No. The law presumes the split should be equal (50/50). However, a judge can order an unequal distribution (e.g., 60/40) if they make specific written findings justifying the unequal split based on statutory factors, such as one spouse’s waste of assets or their greater contribution to the marriage.
What is the difference between marital and nonmarital property? Marital property is generally anything acquired (assets) or incurred (debts) during the marriage, and it is subject to division. Nonmarital property is property acquired before the marriage, or by specific gift or inheritance during the marriage, and it is not subject to division.
Why did the court in Jones v. Jones reverse the judgment? The appellate court reversed the judgment because the trial judge failed to make the “mandatory written findings” required by law. The judge did not classify assets as marital or nonmarital, did not provide any evidentiary basis for the values assigned to assets, and did not explain how the final distribution was calculated.
What is a “fundamental error” in a divorce judgment? A fundamental error is a mistake on the “face of the judgment” that is so serious it invalidates the ruling. As the Jones case confirms, a trial court’s complete failure to make the required equitable distribution findings is a fundamental error that can be corrected on appeal.