A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Busto v. Arias, serves as a critical, practical lesson for any individual involved in a high-stakes divorce. The case, which was affirmed by the Third District Court of Appeal, involved a Husband’s appeal of three core financial components of the final judgment: the valuation of his business, the calculation of his income for child support, and the valuation of the marital home. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on all three issues.
The reason for the Husband’s complete failure on appeal is the “golden thread” that runs through every contested divorce: competent, substantial evidence. The appellate court’s opinion is a methodical breakdown of how, on every single financial issue, the trial court’s decision was supported by a specific, tangible piece of evidence in the record—such as a recent financial affidavit or a detailed profit and loss statement. The Husband, in contrast, failed to provide the court with any competing, credible evidence, such as expert testimony or a recent appraisal. This case is a powerful warning that a party cannot win a complex financial dispute in a Tampa courtroom with arguments alone; they must win with evidence.
The Foundation of All Rulings: “Competent, Substantial Evidence”
In a Florida dissolution of marriage, a trial judge does not have a crystal ball. Every financial decision a judge makes—from the value of a business to a party’s income to the worth of a home—must be based on a “finding of fact.” For that finding to be valid, it must be supported by “competent, substantial evidence.”
This is a legal term that simply means the finding is based on reliable, verifiable proof that was properly presented during the trial. This can include:
- Sworn financial affidavits.
- Tax returns, W-2s, and pay stubs.
- Bank and retirement account statements.
- Profit & Loss (P&L) statements for a business.
- Certified real estate appraisals.
- The sworn testimony of an expert, such as a forensic accountant or a vocational expert.
When a party appeals a trial court’s financial ruling, the appellate court does not “re-weigh” the evidence. It does not decide which party it “believed” more. The appellate court’s only job is to look at the trial record and determine if there is any competent, substantial evidence that supports the judge’s conclusion. If there is, the ruling must be affirmed, even if there was other evidence that contradicted it.
The Busto case is a perfect illustration of this. On all three contested points, the trial court had a piece of competent evidence to rely on. The Husband lost because he failed to provide the court with any credible, competing evidence, leaving the judge with no choice but to rule based on the only evidence presented. This is a critical strategic point that any Tampa divorce lawyer must build their entire case around.
Issue 1: The Business Valuation and “Personal Goodwill”
The first and most complex issue involved the valuation of the Husband’s marital business, “Paella 305.” In many Tampa divorces involving a small business, a medical practice, or a consulting firm, the business is the single largest marital asset.
The Husband’s Argument: The Husband argued that the trial court made a fundamental math error. He claimed the court “double-counted” his $104,500 salary by first deducting it as a business expense (to arrive at a low net income) and then adding it back to that net income to arrive at the final valuation. He argued that his salary was “personal goodwill”—a value tied to his unique skills and reputation—and should be excluded from the business’s value.
What is “Personal Goodwill”? This is a critical concept that a Tampa divorce lawyer must litigate in business valuation cases.
- Enterprise Goodwill: This is the value of the business itself—its brand name, location, customer lists, and contracts. This is a marital asset and is subject to equitable distribution.
- Personal Goodwill: This is the value attributable only to the skill, reputation, and personal relationships of the owner. This is not a marital asset and cannot be divided.
The Husband was arguing that his $104,500 salary was not a business asset but was just payment for his personal, non-divisible skill.
Why the Husband’s Argument Failed: He failed to prove it. He provided no evidence to support his claim. To prove “personal goodwill,” a party cannot simply say the words. They must present expert testimony or other evidence that separates the value of the owner from the value of the business. The Husband in Busto did not hire a forensic accountant and provided no such evidence. A court cannot, and will not, simply guess the value of goodwill.
The “Seller’s Discretionary Earnings” (SDE) Method: Since the Husband provided no competing valuation, the trial court was free to adopt any legitimate method that was supported by the evidence. The evidence did show the Husband’s P&L statement, which listed his $104,500 compensation as a line item.
The appellate court found that the trial judge used a valid and common valuation method known as the “seller’s discretionary earnings” (SDE) method. This method is specifically designed to determine the true value of a small business to a potential buyer.
The SDE formula is essentially: Net Income + Owner’s Salary + Owner’s Perks + One-Time Expenses
The logic is simple: the “profit” of a small business is not just its net income; it is the net income plus all the money the owner takes out of it. A new buyer could purchase the business and choose to pay themselves that same $104,500 salary, or they could hire a manager for $50,000 and pocket the $54,500 difference as additional profit. Therefore, the owner’s salary is a key component of the business’s value.
Because the trial court used a legitimate valuation method (SDE) that was supported by competent, substantial evidence (the P&L statement), its finding had to be affirmed.
The Tampa Takeaway: If you own a business, you cannot walk into a Hillsborough County courtroom and just tell the judge what you think it is worth. You must be prepared to prove it with a formal valuation from a qualified forensic accountant. If you fail to provide this evidence, the court will be forced to rely on whatever evidence the other side presents, which is exactly what happened in Busto.
Issue 2: The Child Support Calculation and “Phantom Income”
The second issue involved the calculation of the Husband’s income for child support. This is another area where “paper trails” and “competent evidence” are paramount.
The Husband’s Argument: The Husband claimed the trial court again “double-counted” his income. He argued that the court took his 2023 salary draw of $95,247 and then added back $37,261 in temporary support payments he had made to the Wife. He claimed he made these support payments from his personal bank account, which was funded by his $95,247 salary. In short, he argued the $37k was already part of the $95k.
Why the Husband’s Argument Failed: Once again, his own documents betrayed him. The trial court deemed the 2023 business Profit & Loss (P&L) statement to be the “best evidence.” The appellate court agreed.
That P&L statement showed:
- A line item for the Husband’s salary draw.
- A separate line item for $37,261 paid to the Wife (Arias) under “cost of good sold.”
The evidence in the record directly contradicted the Husband’s argument. The business records showed that the company paid the Wife $37,261 directly, and this payment was separate from, and in addition to, the Husband’s salary.
The appellate court’s logic was sharp and fatal to the Husband’s claim: the bank account he used to make the payment is “irrelevant.” What matters is the origin of the money. The P&L clearly showed that the Husband’s total compensationfrom the business was his salary draw plus the $37,261 in support payments the business made on his behalf. The trial court correctly added these two figures together to determine his true gross income for child support.
The Tampa Takeaway: This is a critical lesson for any self-employed person in a Tampa divorce. You cannot “hide” income by labeling it as a “business expense” or by running personal payments through the company. A good Tampa divorce lawyer will use subpoenas and discovery to get the business’s P&L statements, balance sheets, and bank records. The court will follow the paper trail. The Busto case confirms that all money a party receives from their business—whether labeled “salary,” “distribution,” “draw,” or “payment of personal expenses”—will be added together to determine their true income for support.
Issue 3: The Home Valuation and the “Battle of the Affidavits”
The final issue was a simple, common, and entirely avoidable valuation dispute over the marital home.
The Husband’s Argument: The Husband argued the trial court abused its discretion by valuing the marital home at $400,000, which was the value listed on the Wife’s financial affidavit. He claimed the court should have used his valuation of $480,000.
Why the Husband’s Argument Failed: This was a simple “battle of the evidence,” and the Husband’s evidence was stale.
- The Husband’s Evidence: A financial affidavit from August 2022, listing the value at $480,000.
- The Wife’s Evidence: A financial affidavit from February 2024, listing the value at $400,000.
The final trial took place after February 2024. The trial judge was faced with two competing, unverified values. The judge chose to use the Wife’s value. The appellate court affirmed this, finding it was a perfectly reasonable exercise of judicial discretion.
The law gives a judge broad discretion to pick a valuation date that is “just and equitable.” The appellate court noted that the Husband offered “no explanation… why it would have been more equitable for the court to use a significantly older valuation over the more recent one.”
The Tampa Takeaway: This is perhaps the most practical lesson in the entire Busto opinion. You cannot rely on a two-year-old financial affidavit to prove the value of a home, especially in the volatile Tampa real estate market. The Husband’s failure here was simple: he failed to provide any competent, recent evidence of the home’s value.
For a few hundred dollars, he could have hired a certified appraiser to produce a current valuation report. This appraisal would have been “competent, substantial evidence.” Had he done so, the judge would have likely been required to adopt the appraiser’s value over the Wife’s unverified “guesstimate.”
Instead, the Husband provided no new evidence. The only recent evidence in the record was the Wife’s $400,000 figure. The judge did not “get it wrong”; the judge was simply left with no other competent evidence to use. A Tampa divorce lawyer will always advise that for a trial, you must have a recent, certified appraisal for any significant real estate.
Conclusion: You Do Not Win a Divorce on Arguments, You Win on Evidence
The Busto v. Arias case is a powerful and sobering reminder that a final divorce trial is not a debate. It is a proceeding to establish a factual record. The Husband in this case may have had compelling arguments, but he had no evidence. He lost on all three financial issues because he failed to hire a business valuation expert, his own financial records contradicted his child support claims, and he failed to get a recent home appraisal.
The outcome of your divorce will not be determined by what you “think” an asset is worth. It will be determined by what you can prove it is worth. This is the primary role of an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer: to guide you in building your case. This involves hiring the right experts, conducting the right discovery to get the “paper trail,” and ensuring that every financial claim you make is backed by competent, substantial evidence.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce involving a business, self-employment income, or complex asset division, the Busto case is a clear warning. You must be prepared to prove your case with facts and documents, not just arguments. Contact our office for a consultation to ensure your financial future is protected by a solid, evidence-based legal strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is “competent, substantial evidence” in a Florida divorce? This is the legal standard for the proof needed to support a judge’s factual finding. It means the evidence must be reliable, relevant, and properly admitted, such as expert testimony, financial documents, or a certified appraisal.
What is a business valuation in a Tampa divorce? It is the formal process of determining the “fair market value” of a marital business for the purpose of equitable distribution. This is almost always done by a neutral or joint forensic accountant.
What is the difference between “personal goodwill” and “enterprise goodwill”? “Enterprise goodwill” is the value of a business’s brand and reputation, which is a marital asset. “Personal goodwill” is the value tied specifically to the owner’s personal skill and reputation, which is not a marital asset. A party must provide expert testimony to prove the value of any personal goodwill.
What is the “seller’s discretionary earnings” (SDE) method of valuation? It is a common method for valuing a small business. It calculates the total financial benefit a new owner would receive by adding the business’s net income plus the current owner’s salary, perks, and benefits.
How does a court pick a valuation date for a marital home? A judge has broad discretion to pick any date between the filing of the petition and the date of the final trial that is “just and equitable.” As the Busto case shows, a judge is very likely to use the most recent valuation provided in the evidence.
The McKinney Law Group: Tampa Divorce Attorneys Helping You Start Your Next Chapter
Divorce is never easy, but it can be the first step toward a stronger future. We help Tampa clients navigate this process with clarity, strategy, and compassion—protecting their rights and guiding them every step of the way.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to schedule your confidential consultation.