Whitepaper 01 · Divorce, assets and incomeHidden assets in a Florida divorce: an examiner’s field guide.

Florida is an equitable distribution state. In a dissolution, the court first sets apart each spouse’s nonmarital assets and liabilities, then divides the marital ones, and it must begin with the premise that the division should be equal unless there is a justification for an unequal split based on the factors in section 61.075(1).¹ Concealment matters because it shrinks the marital pot before that premise is applied.

Marital versus nonmarital

Marital assets include assets acquired and liabilities incurred during the marriage by either spouse, the enhancement in value of nonmarital assets caused by marital effort or funds, interspousal gifts, all vested and nonvested retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation and insurance benefits accrued during the marriage, and the marital interest in a closely held business.¹ Nonmarital assets include property owned before the marriage, property received by a gift from a third party or by inheritance, income from nonmarital assets unless the parties treated it as marital, and property excluded by a valid written agreement.¹

Two presumptions shape every hidden-asset case. Assets acquired during the marriage are presumed marital unless shown otherwise, and the party claiming that property is nonmarital carries the burden of proving it.¹ A spouse who quietly moves marital money into an account labeled as an inheritance therefore has to prove the label, and the documents that would prove it are the same ones an examiner uses to test it.

Cut-off and valuation dates

The statute separates two dates that are easy to confuse. The cut-off date for identifying and classifying marital assets is the earliest of a valid separation agreement, a date the agreement sets, or the filing of the petition. The date for valuing assets is whatever date the judge finds just and equitable, and different assets may be valued as of different dates.¹ Timing games, such as delaying a bonus or a closing until after filing, are aimed at these dates.

The dissipation factor

Among the factors that can justify an unequal distribution, the statute lists “the intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior to the filing of the petition,” along with a catch-all for any other factor necessary to do equity.¹ Our companion guide on dissipation of marital assets in Florida covers how courts apply it.

Concealment methods fall into four families: income that is never reported, value that is shifted in time, money moved to someone or something else, and liabilities that are invented or inflated. Exhibit 1 maps the common methods to the records that expose them. Almost every row points to a record that mandatory disclosure already requires.

Methods that look innocent

Several methods use transactions that are legal on their own. A participant can borrow from a 401(k) plan up to the lesser of $50,000 or the greater of $10,000 and half the vested balance, generally repaid within five years, and a plan may require spousal consent.⁹ A taxpayer can elect to apply an overpayment to next year’s estimated tax, and the 2025 Form 1040 instructions say that election cannot be changed later.¹⁰ A spouse who files separately after separating keeps that credit in their own IRS account.

Custodial accounts deserve particular care. Under Florida’s Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, a transfer to a custodian is irrevocable and the property is indefeasibly vested in the minor.¹¹ Money moved there during a breakdown may be gone from the marital estate for good, which makes it a dissipation question rather than a hidden-asset question.

Cash leaves its own signature. Banks must report each currency transaction of more than $10,000, and federal law prohibits structuring transactions to evade that reporting.¹²¹³ Repeated withdrawals just under the threshold are a warning sign, not proof.

Our case study on Pitt v. Jolie and Château Miraval looks at the kind of questions an examiner asks when a jointly held business interest changes hands during a dispute.

The rule requires complete returns “including all attachments” and every accompanying schedule and worksheet, plus business and trust returns where the party has an interest.² Those schedules are where an examiner looks first, because each one is a map to records the summary page does not show.

Cryptocurrency records

Federal returns ask whether the taxpayer received, sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed of a digital asset during the year, and a version of the question appears on individual, gift, estate and trust returns.⁸ Brokers that take possession of customers’ digital assets, including custodial trading platforms, must report sales on Form 1099-DA for transactions on or after January 1, 2025.⁸ For divorces now in progress, the 2025 tax year is the first with that broker reporting of exchange sales.

Florida’s rule reaches the same assets directly: 12 months of virtual currency statements and a list of all current holdings, including those held through someone else.² When disclosure is incomplete, a party can subpoena an exchange or other nonparty for documents without a deposition, after giving the other parties advance notice and an opportunity to object.¹⁴

Proof of concealment does not produce one fixed penalty. It gives the court several tools, each with its own requirements. Exhibit 7 sets out those grounded in the statute, the rules and appellate decisions.

The evidence standard is the whole game

Florida appellate courts hold that it is generally error to include in equitable distribution assets that were diminished during the proceedings. The exception is misconduct: the court must have evidence of the spending spouse’s intentional dissipation and make a specific finding of intentional misconduct, meaning marital funds used for one spouse’s own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage while it was breaking down. Mismanagement or simple squandering of which the other spouse disapproves is not enough.¹⁵

In Roth, the trial court charged the husband with a $100,000 certificate of deposit, $220,000 in a bank account and a brokerage account because he had given “no explanation whatsoever” for them. The Second District reversed: his uncontradicted testimony was that the money paid court-ordered support and family expenses, and a court cannot find intentional dissipation without some evidence of it.¹⁵ In June 2026 the Fourth District reversed a judgment for the same reason, where the trial court found the husband credible that a $100,000 retirement withdrawal paid household expenses but still charged it to him.²⁰ And in Lapomarede v. Pierre, the Fourth District placed the burden on the party seeking an unequal allocation and found it unmet where no evidence of intentional dissipation was offered.¹⁶

The lesson for the party alleging concealment: a court rules on schedules, tracing and documents, not on a strong suspicion.

Fees and sanctions

Section 61.16 lets the court order one party to pay the other’s reasonable attorney’s fees, suit money and costs after considering both parties’ financial resources.¹⁸ The Florida Supreme Court held in Rosen that the statute should be liberally construed and that courts may also weigh the scope and history of the litigation and whether a defense was raised mainly to frustrate or stall.¹⁹ Discovery sanctions under rule 12.380 can go further, including orders that designated facts be taken as established or that pleadings be struck.¹⁷

For a client who suspects concealment, the practical path is to request the records early, document the gaps, and bring in an examiner before the deadline for expert disclosure. Our divorce financial investigation practice is built around that sequence.