In Florida, the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities upon dissolution of marriage presents a complex legal challenge, often depending heavily on judicial discretion. A critical aspect of this process involves establishing appropriate valuation dates for assets, which significantly impacts the final distribution. Courts possess considerable flexibility in setting these dates to achieve a just and equitable outcome. This judicial latitude allows for tailored decisions that reflect the unique circumstances of each case, rather than rigid adherence to a single, predetermined date.
Florida law grants trial judges broad authority to determine the date for valuing marital assets and liabilities. Florida Statute section 61.075(7) explicitly states that “different assets may be valued as of different dates, as, in the judge’s discretion, the circumstances require”. This statutory provision allows judges to select valuation dates that are “just and equitable under the circumstances”. Factors that may influence a judge’s decision regarding asset values and their distribution include, but are not limited to, the contribution to the marriage by each spouse, including contributions as a homemaker; the economic circumstances of the parties; the duration of the marriage; and any 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. Appellate courts review these decisions for competent, substantial evidence and abuse of discretion, overturning them only if the record does not justify the use of different dates.
A recent example illustrating this principle appears in Zargari v. Zargari, a case decided by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, in July 2025. Zargari, No. 1D2023-1843, 2025 WL 1887303 (Fla. 1st DCA July 9, 2025). In Zargari, the court reviewed a final judgment dissolving a thirty-one-year marriage and dividing a substantial marital estate of over fourteen million dollars. The marital estate included significant holdings, such as Marquis Kitchen & Bath, Inc., a high-end products and services provider, valued by the trial court at $1,275,000. Its showroom and underlying property were valued at just over $4,000,000. The marital home alone stood at $1.5 million, with several other commercial and residential rental properties, four of which each exceeded $1,000,000 in value. The former wife challenged her asset awards as inadequate, specifically arguing that the trial court made errors regarding valuation dates for some assets. The appellate court, however, affirmed the trial court’s equitable distribution scheme, finding no abuse of discretion.
The Zargari court reiterated the extremely high threshold for finding an abuse of discretion in equitable distribution cases, emphasizing the superior vantage point of the trial judge. An abuse of discretion occurs only when a trial court’s action is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Geralds v. State, 111 So. 3d 778, 801 (Fla. 2010) (quoting State v. Coney, 845 So. 2d 120, 137 (Fla. 2003)). If “reasonable people could differ” on the correctness of the judge’s decision regarding asset and liability distribution, the decision then remains valid. Collier v. Collier, 343 So. 3d 183, 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980)). The appellate court in Zargari concluded that, despite alleged omissions or technical errors concerning valuation dates, the former wife had not demonstrated any “material inequitable impact on the bottom-line award”. For instance, while one property that generated $200,000 a year was awarded to the former wife, she refused to accept it. This particular detail highlights the trial court’s effort to achieve a balanced outcome, even if a party then declines an assigned asset. The ultimate distribution resulted in each party receiving almost exactly $7,000,000 in value, including an equalization payment of $444,794 to the former wife. Since the overall distribution was equitable, the appellate court’s inquiry ended. This outcome demonstrates that the court’s focus rests on the fairness of the final distribution, not on isolated valuation choices if those choices do not materially alter the overall equity. The court’s discretion extends to valuing different assets as of different dates as “the circumstances require,” underscoring a flexible approach aimed at equity. Fla. Stat. § 61.075(7) (2021).
This deferential standard underscores the significant discretion afforded to trial judges in Florida’s equitable distribution process. The overriding objective remains achieving an equitable distribution of assets and liabilities between the parties. This flexibility in selecting valuation dates allows judges to consider various factors that might affect an asset’s value, ensuring the final distribution reflects fairness under the unique circumstances of each case. The appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s judgment regarding valuation dates when the distribution’s overall equitability remains unaffected, even if minor valuation issues are present. The Florida Supreme Court, through Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Rule 12.530(a), mandates that litigants move for rehearing or risk waiving certain unpreserved issues on appeal, further highlighting the importance of presenting detailed arguments at the trial level. The former wife in Zargari, for instance, waived her argument concerning attorney fees by not raising it in her rehearing motion.
In sum, Florida’s approach to valuing marital assets for equitable distribution grants judges considerable discretion in setting valuation dates. This flexibility enables courts to tailor decisions to individual circumstances, ensuring a fair division of property. Litigants face a high burden when appealing these decisions, as appellate courts will not interfere unless the trial judge’s valuation date choices are wholly unreasonable and unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. The primary goal is always an equitable, rather than necessarily equal, division of the marital estate.
Biography of Anthony Meehan Genova
Anthony Meehan Genova is a highly qualified legal professional specializing in family law, particularly known for his extensive experience in mediation and his commitment to community service.
Mr. Genova holds a Board Certification in Marital & Family Law, which signifies Florida’s official and independent determination of a lawyer’s expertise in this specialized field. This certification, administered by The Florida Bar and officiated by The Florida Supreme Court, began in 1982 to help the public select distinguished lawyers. Board-certified lawyers undergo a thorough evaluation for credibility, expertise, professionalism, and ethics.
To achieve this esteemed certification, Mr. Genova, like all board-certified lawyers, demonstrated a dedication to a heightened level of excellence through character, professionalism, ethics, and credibility. The rigorous process requires a minimum of five years of law practice and substantial involvement in the chosen area of law. He successfully passed a comprehensive examination evaluating a high level of knowledge, skills, and expertise, and completed a rigorous peer-review process assessing competence, professionalism, and ethics. Additionally, board-certified lawyers must fulfill continuing legal education requirements that are more robust than those for general licensure. This certification is valid for five years and requires continued practice and attendance at Florida Bar-approved continuing legal education courses for recertification. As of 2023, fewer than five thousand lawyers in Florida—only five percent of eligible Florida Bar members—have earned board certification. Retaining a board-certified lawyer like Mr. Genova offers clients specialized expertise, professionalism, ethics, credibility, and a heightened dedication to excellence. His rigorously evaluated experience and competency provide assurance of a heightened level of proficiency in Marital & Family Law.
In addition to his board certification, Mr. Genova has been a Supreme Court Certified Marital & Family Law Mediator since 2019. He has been a dedicated member of the Executive Council of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar since 2016, demonstrating deep engagement with the evolution and practice of family law. His significant involvement includes various leadership and committee roles, such as: Co-chair of the Rules and Forms Committee (2018–
2020), Chair of the Membership Committee (2016–2017), Vice Chair of the Domestic Violence Committee (2017–2018), Co-Vice Chair for Diversity and Inclusion (2023–2024), Member of the Equitable Distribution Committee (2017– 2020), and Member of the Support Issues Committee (2014–2018).