When clients meet with a tampa divorce lawyer, they often believe that if something was not clearly spelled out in the pleadings, the court cannot order it. Lapomarede v. Pierre (2024) shows that this is not always true, especially in time-sharing disputes. At the same time, the case also reinforces strict limits on when a court may shift marital debt entirely onto one spouse.
This Fourth District Court of Appeal decision addresses two recurring divorce issues:
- whether a parent had adequate notice of a proposed time-sharing schedule, and
- whether a court can allocate a marital loan entirely to one spouse without sufficient factual findings.
For anyone working with a tampa divorce lawyer, this case provides important guidance on consent, notice, and equitable distribution.
The Big Picture: Consent Matters, and Equality Is the Starting Point
In divorce cases, trial courts have discretion, but not unlimited discretion. A tampa divorce lawyer will tell clients that courts can adopt parenting plans raised before trial and tried by consent, even if not spelled out word-for-word in a pleading. However, courts may not unequally divide marital debt unless the law and the evidence clearly justify it.
That distinction drives the outcome of this case.
Time-Sharing: Notice Does Not Always Mean Pleadings
What Happened
The former husband sought a week-on, week-off time-sharing schedule. The former wife argued on appeal that she was denied due process because the request was not specifically pleaded in the former husband’s counter-petition.
The trial court adopted the week-on, week-off schedule.
What the Appellate Court Said
The appellate court affirmed the time-sharing ruling. Although the former husband did not plead the exact schedule in his counter-petition, he filed a proposed parenting plan with the week-on, week-off schedule before trial. That plan was admitted into evidence without objection.
The former wife:
- Cross-examined the former husband about the schedule
- Argued against 50/50 time-sharing in closing
- Never objected to the proposed plan
A tampa divorce lawyer will recognize this as a classic example of an issue being “tried by consent.” Because there was notice and no objection, there was no due process violation.
Courts Can Adopt Parenting Plans Supported by the Evidence
The former wife also argued that the week-on, week-off schedule was not in the child’s best interests.
The appellate court rejected that argument as well. The trial court made detailed findings, found credibility issues with the former wife’s testimony, and relied on evidence showing that the schedule would promote bonding and reduce stress once the child entered school.
A tampa divorce lawyer knows that appellate courts rarely second-guess parenting plans when the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Marital Loans Start as Shared Debt
The second major issue involved a loan taken out during the marriage.
What Happened
Four months before filing for divorce, the former wife obtained a $20,000 loan in her own name. She testified that she used the loan to consolidate marital credit card debt and pay pregnancy-related living and medical expenses incurred while she was on bedrest.
The trial court allocated the entire loan to the former wife, citing:
- The short duration of the marriage
- The fact that the loan was in her name
- The timing of the loan shortly before divorce
Why the Appellate Court Reversed the Debt Allocation
The appellate court reversed the unequal allocation of the loan.
A tampa divorce lawyer will immediately recognize the key legal principle: marital liabilities are presumed to be divided equally. A court may deviate from equality only if it makes specific factual findings supported by evidence.
Here, the appellate court found:
- Both parties agreed the loan was a marital liability
- There was no evidence of intentional dissipation or misuse
- The husband failed to prove justification for unequal allocation
Taking out a loan in one spouse’s name, even shortly before divorce, is not enough to shift the entire debt to that spouse.
Dissipation Requires Proof, Not Suspicion
The trial court relied in part on the statutory dissipation factor. But the appellate court found no evidence that the former wife wasted or misused marital funds.
A tampa divorce lawyer knows that dissipation requires proof of intentional misuse, such as spending on affairs, luxury trips, or non-marital purposes. Paying pregnancy and household expenses does not meet that standard.
Because the husband failed to meet his burden of proof, the appellate court ordered the loan to be divided equally.
Frequently Asked Questions About Lapomarede v. Pierre
Can a court order a time-sharing schedule that was not pleaded?
Yes, if the issue was raised before trial and tried by consent. A tampa divorce lawyer will advise clients to object early if they believe they lack notice.
What does “tried by consent” mean?
It means evidence was introduced without objection and the issue was fully litigated. A tampa divorce lawyer watches this closely during trial.
Is a loan taken during the marriage always marital?
Generally yes. A tampa divorce lawyer will explain that debts incurred during the marriage are presumed marital.
Can a court assign all marital debt to one spouse?
Only with legally sufficient findings supported by evidence. A tampa divorce lawyer can challenge unequal allocations that lack proof.
Does taking out a loan shortly before divorce count as dissipation?
Not by itself. A tampa divorce lawyer will look for evidence of waste or misuse, not timing alone.
What This Case Means for You
Lapomarede v. Pierre reinforces several principles that experienced tampa divorce lawyer professionals emphasize regularly:
- Parenting plans can be adopted if raised and tried by consent
- Silence can equal consent in trial proceedings
- Marital debts start with equal division
- Unequal debt allocation requires proof, not assumptions
- Dissipation must be proven with evidence
Divorce outcomes depend heavily on procedure, objections, and evidentiary burdens. Working with a knowledgeable tampa divorce lawyer helps ensure that parenting issues are properly litigated and that marital debts are divided according to the law.
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.