It is common in divorces for the financial affidavits to reflect loans from relatives. There must be competent, substantial evidence, in addition to the financial affidavit, to prove a loan. The trial court has discretion to accept or reject the validity of such alleged loans. For example in previous court case the evidence did not support equitable distribution of alleged loan made to wife by wife’s parents; there is no testimony offered regarding the loan, and record contained no evidence of when the loan was incurred, so it could not be classified as marital liability. In a different case there was no evidence to written evidence loan, court did not err in including loan from husband’s parents as marital debt.
When a trial court determines to equitably distribute a debt to a relative as marriage debt, it means that the court determines, between the husband and the wife, who should be responsible for that debt. The dissolution of marriage judgment is not a final judgment in favor of the relative for the underlying debt that the relative would be entitled to enforce.
It would be irreparable harm in inconsistent rulings on the parties’ entitlement to marital property in a dissolution action when there is a separate action in civil court on the same marital property brought by a family member that will compromise the dissolution judge’s ability to fashion a Final Judgment under Chapter 61 of Florida Statute, both actions should be consolidated.
Lack of evidence can affect the entire equitable distribution scheme and the ability of the court to effect an equitable distribution. The court must have information on all the assets and liabilities at the time of trial. If there is not sufficient evidence presented, the court may ignore “insignificant assets” or recess for the partied to obtain the evidence for the court to rule on equitable distribution. Alternatively, if there is no or insufficient evidence presented, the parties may end up with a second trial, and the costs and stresses involved. When the parties fail to present any evidence concerning the value of a specific asset, the trial court is entitled to presume that the asset is not of significant value. In that case the trial court does not err by failing to include that specific asset in its equitable distribution scheme.
In the presentation of equitable distribution evidence, more that in any other area, the use of charts and demonstrative evidence is invaluable. Appellate courts have recommended that
family court judges show their equitable distribution findings in chart form.
Get useful things to know about divorce law – [spin]please read this page. The times have come when concise info is really within one click, use this opportunity for info on family law.