Going through a divorce is one of the most stressful experiences a person can face — and when marital assets, international bank accounts, and years of litigation are thrown into the mix, it can feel completely overwhelming. If you are navigating a Florida divorce, a recent 2024 decision from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, Vindel v. Stewart, offers important lessons about how courts handle hidden assets, the rules for introducing financial evidence, and your right to attorney’s fees. As an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer, understanding cases like this one can help you protect your financial future.
Below, we break down what happened in Vindel v. Stewart, what the court decided, and — most importantly — what it means for you if you are currently going through a divorce in the Tampa Bay area.
What Happened in Vindel v. Stewart? A Plain-English Summary
Mishelle Addys Perdomo Vindel (the Former Wife) and Scott Aron Stewart (the Former Husband) were married in 2012. The couple had no children. When the Former Husband filed for divorce in January 2018, the case took years to fully resolve — and it got complicated.
The main financial dispute centered on whether the Former Wife had hidden marital money in bank accounts at Banco Ficohsa Honduras, a bank based in Honduras with a small liaison office in Coral Gables, Florida. The Former Husband believed those accounts — totaling roughly $100,000 — were secretly stashed marital funds. The Former Wife said the money was not hers at all: it belonged to a Michigan-based non-profit called Hands in Service, which had used her Honduran bank account as a conduit to send charitable donations to local organizations in Honduras.
The director of Hands in Service, Wayne Merz, backed up the Former Wife’s story. He testified that he would wire money to her account, and she or her sister would then distribute those funds to Honduran charities. The Former Wife stopped having anything to do with the account after she married in 2012; her sister took over. None of the money, they said, was ever the Former Wife’s to keep.
To prove his side of the story, the Former Husband needed to introduce the Honduran bank records as evidence. That is where things went legally sideways — and where this case became significant for Florida family law.
The Evidence Problem: Why Foreign Bank Records Are Not Simple to Introduce in Court
In any legal proceeding, you cannot just hand a judge a stack of documents and expect them to be accepted as fact. Every piece of evidence must be properly authenticated — meaning there must be a qualified person who can confirm the documents are what they claim to be, and that they were created and kept in the normal course of business.
For bank records specifically, Florida law (section 90.803(6) of the Florida Statutes) requires that the records be introduced through a “records custodian” — a person at the bank who actually oversees those records — or through a written certification that meets specific legal requirements. That certification must state three things:
- The records were made at or near the time of the events they describe, by someone with firsthand knowledge.
- The records were kept in the regular course of the bank’s business.
- Making such records was a standard practice of the bank.
Here, the Former Husband served a subpoena on the Banco Ficohsa liaison office in Coral Gables, Florida. That office sent along a letter and what it described as “authentic copies” of the Honduran account records.
There was a major problem: the Coral Gables office was not a records custodian. It was a representative office — a liaison between the Honduran bank and its U.S. customers. It could not accept deposits, did not maintain the Honduran bank’s records, and explicitly said in its letter that it had to forward the request to the “Head Office in Honduras” to get the records. The actual bank and its records were in Honduras, not Florida.
When Banco Ficohsa Honduras moved to quash the subpoena and made clear that there was no records custodian in Coral Gables, the trial court still admitted the records — relying on the representative office’s letter as a sufficient “certificate of authenticity.”
The appeals court disagreed. The letter from the Coral Gables liaison office did not meet any of the three legal requirements for a proper certification. It did not say when the records were made, who made them, whether they were kept in the regular course of business, or whether making them was standard practice. The trial court, the appeals court ruled, should never have let those records into evidence.
What the Court Decided — and Why It Matters for Florida Divorces
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling on three separate grounds. Let’s walk through each one and explain why it matters for anyone going through a divorce in Florida.
1. The Bank Records Were Improperly Admitted — So the Entire Equitable Distribution Finding Falls Apart
Because the Honduran bank records were admitted without proper authentication, the appeals court threw out the trial court’s finding that the $107,970 in those accounts was marital property subject to equitable distribution. Without those records, there was simply no competent evidence to support that conclusion.
This is a significant reminder that in divorce proceedings, evidence matters enormously. It is not enough for one spouse to say “I believe money is hidden in a foreign account.” That belief must be backed by properly authenticated, legally admissible evidence. If the evidence falls short of the legal standard, the court cannot rely on it — no matter how convinced the judge might be that something is being concealed.
For the Former Wife, this was a major win. The trial court had ordered her to “keep” approximately $107,970 in the Honduran accounts while the Former Husband kept $103,865 in a Capital One account. In other words, the court had essentially used unproven allegations against her as an offset. Now those findings had to be reconsidered from scratch.
2. The Court Erred in Denying Prejudgment Interest
This part of the ruling tackles something many divorcing spouses do not know they may be entitled to: prejudgment interest. When one spouse has control over marital assets that should rightfully be shared — and the other spouse goes years without access to their fair share — Florida courts have the discretion to award interest on those amounts to compensate for the delay.
In Vindel v. Stewart, the Former Wife argued she had been kept from her share of the marital estate from January 2018 (when the divorce was filed) until at least February 2021 — a period of more than three years. The trial court denied her request for prejudgment interest, saying it would be “inequitable to charge the Former Husband for delays largely occasioned by the pandemic.”
The appeals court found two problems with that reasoning. First, at least two of the three years of delay occurred before the pandemic even began (the COVID-19 shutdown did not start until March 2020). Second, and more fundamentally, the purpose of prejudgment interest is not to punish the spouse who had the money — it is to compensate the spouse who was denied access to it. Whether the delay was caused by the pandemic, litigation strategy, or anything else, the core question is whether one spouse lost the use of funds they were entitled to. That question was not properly addressed.
Key takeaway: If your divorce has dragged on for years and you have been denied access to marital funds you are entitled to, prejudgment interest may be available to you. This is an issue your Tampa family law attorney should specifically evaluate in your case.
3. The Court Cannot Simply Deny Attorney’s Fees Without Making Findings
Florida law (section 61.16 of the Florida Statutes) allows a court to order one spouse to pay the other’s attorney’s fees in a divorce case, based on each party’s ability to pay and financial need. The purpose is to level the playing field when one spouse has significantly more resources than the other — so that neither side is effectively priced out of a fair legal process.
In this case, both parties’ requests for attorney’s fees were denied in a single sentence: “Both parties’ requests for an award of attorney’s fees from the other are DENIED. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.”
The appeals court found this to be reversible error. A trial court simply cannot deny a request for attorney’s fees under Florida law without making specific findings about each party’s financial need and ability to pay. The judge must show his or her work. Without those findings, it is impossible to know whether the court properly applied the law — or simply glossed over an issue that could have a major financial impact on a struggling spouse.
This ruling reinforces something experienced Tampa divorce attorneys know well: procedural and evidentiary requirements exist to protect both parties in a divorce. When a court skips required steps, appellate courts will send the case back to start again.
Practical Takeaways: What This Ruling Means If You Are Getting Divorced in Tampa Bay
Whether your divorce is relatively straightforward or involves complex finances, international accounts, or a contentious spouse, the Vindel v. Stewart ruling has several important lessons for you.
Hidden Assets Must Be Proven with Properly Authenticated Evidence
If you believe your spouse is hiding marital assets — in domestic accounts, foreign bank accounts, cryptocurrency, real estate, or anywhere else — that belief alone is not enough. You need admissible, properly authenticated evidence. This case is a powerful reminder that shortcuts in gathering evidence can undo an entire legal strategy. Your attorney needs to understand the rules of evidence and know how to build a proper evidentiary record.
Conversely, if you are falsely accused of hiding marital assets, you have the right to challenge the evidence against you. If that evidence does not meet the legal standard for admissibility, it should not be used against you — and a skilled Florida divorce attorney will know how to raise that challenge effectively.
Equitable Distribution Is Not Always 50/50 — But It Must Be Based on Real Evidence
Florida follows the principle of “equitable distribution” when dividing marital assets and debts. This does not necessarily mean a perfect 50/50 split — it means a fair division based on the specific circumstances of the marriage. But that division must be based on competent, substantial evidence. When a court relies on improperly admitted evidence to make its distribution decision, the entire distribution can be reversed on appeal.
In practical terms, this means your attorney should scrutinize every piece of financial evidence your spouse introduces in court. Whether it is bank statements, tax returns, business valuations, or retirement account records, every document must be properly introduced and authenticated.
Years of Delayed Payments May Entitle You to Interest
Florida divorces can drag on for years, especially when equitable distribution, alimony, business valuations, or contested assets are involved. If your spouse has had the benefit of using marital funds that should have been yours for months or years, prejudgment interest may partially compensate you for that lost access.
This is not guaranteed in every case — Florida courts have discretion on this issue, and there is currently a split between Florida’s appellate districts on whether prejudgment interest is even available in equitable distribution cases (with the First District saying it is not). But based on the Third District’s approach in this case, it is absolutely worth raising with your attorney if you are in Hillsborough County or elsewhere in the Third or Fourth Districts’ jurisdiction.
You Have a Right to Ask the Court to Make the Other Spouse Pay Your Attorney’s Fees
One of the most overlooked aspects of Florida divorce law is the ability to request that the other spouse contribute to your legal fees. Under Florida law, a court can — and in some cases, must — order the wealthier spouse to pay some or all of the other spouse’s attorney’s fees. This is especially important in divorces where one spouse has far greater income or assets, because legal fees can otherwise overwhelm a spouse with limited resources.
But as this case shows, you have to ask for attorney’s fees, and the court has to actually make findings about each party’s financial situation. Do not assume the judge will automatically address this issue — make sure your attorney specifically raises it and builds a record to support the request.
Appeals Are a Real Option When the Trial Court Gets It Wrong
Vindel v. Stewart is also a reminder that if a trial court makes legal errors in your divorce case — admitting evidence it should not have admitted, failing to apply the right legal standard, or skipping required findings — those errors can be corrected on appeal. While no one wants to spend additional years in litigation after already going through a difficult divorce, knowing that an appeal is available and viable can be important.
That said, appeals are expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain. The best strategy is to get things right from the beginning — with experienced legal representation that knows how to build a solid record from day one.
A Closer Look at the Evidence Rules: Why Authentication Matters So Much in Divorce Cases
For readers who want to understand the legal mechanics a bit more deeply, it is worth pausing on the evidence issue at the heart of this case — because it comes up more often than you might think in Tampa family law proceedings.
Under Florida law, a business record (like a bank statement) can be admitted into evidence under what is called the “business records exception” to the hearsay rule. Hearsay is generally not admissible — it means a statement made outside of court that is being offered to prove the truth of what it says. But records made and kept in the regular course of business are an exception, because they are considered inherently reliable.
To use this exception, however, the party introducing the records must provide a proper foundation. Either a qualified witness (typically the records custodian) must testify about how the records are made and kept, or a written certification from the custodian must say the same things.
The critical failure in Vindel v. Stewart was that the Coral Gables representative office was not the records custodian. It explicitly said so. It forwarded the request to Honduras and relayed back what the Honduran bank provided. That letter did not contain any of the required language about when the records were made, by whom, or whether making them was regular practice. The trial court misread the letter as a valid certification — and that misreading resulted in years of additional litigation.
For divorcing spouses in Tampa Bay, this is a valuable lesson: the rules of evidence are not mere technicalities. They exist to ensure that the documents a court relies on are trustworthy and reliable. An experienced Florida divorce attorney will know how to challenge improperly authenticated documents — and how to properly authenticate the documents you need to prove your own case.
What About Charitable Funds and Non-Profit Accounts in a Divorce?
One final issue worth noting: the Former Wife’s defense — that the funds in her Honduran bank accounts were not hers, but belonged to a non-profit organization — raises a broader question that occasionally comes up in divorces.
What happens when a spouse’s bank account has been used to hold or transfer funds that actually belong to a business, a charity, a family trust, or another third party? Does the account balance automatically become a marital asset?
The answer, under Florida law, is that the source of the funds matters. Not all money sitting in an account with a spouse’s name on it is necessarily a marital asset. If funds can be traced to a non-marital source — an inheritance, a gift, or, as the Former Wife argued here, funds belonging to a non-profit — they may not be subject to marital asset division at all.
Tracing the source of funds is a technical but critically important task in complex Florida divorce cases. It requires careful examination of bank records, transaction histories, and often the testimony of accountants or other financial experts. This is exactly the kind of work that a skilled Tampa family law attorney — one experienced in complex asset cases — can do on your behalf.
Talk to a Tampa Divorce Lawyer Who Understands Complex Florida Family Law
Divorce is never easy. But when your financial future depends on whether certain evidence is properly admitted, whether you receive what you are owed, or whether you have to pay your own legal bills while your spouse has unlimited resources, having the right legal team in your corner makes all the difference.
Cases like Vindel v. Stewart show that the details matter — from how bank records are authenticated to whether a court writes down its reasons for every financial decision it makes. A Tampa divorce lawyer who understands these nuances can protect your rights at every stage of the process, from the initial filing through trial and, if necessary, appeal.
At The McKinney Law Group, our Tampa divorce attorneys have years of experience handling complex marital asset division, equitable distribution disputes, and contested divorces throughout Hillsborough County and the greater Tampa Bay area. We understand how Florida courts apply the rules of evidence, how to identify and challenge improperly admitted documents, and how to fight for prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and every other protection the law affords you.
If you are facing a divorce — whether straightforward or deeply complicated — we are here to help. Contact The McKinney Law Group today to schedule a confidential consultation with an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer. Your financial future is too important to leave to chance.
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.