Florida law starts from a straightforward premise: when a marriage ends, marital assets should be divided equally. But what happens when one spouse has already been quietly — or not so quietly — eroding the marital estate before the court can divide it? Florida courts have a name for that conduct, and they take it seriously.

What Is Dissipation of Assets?

Dissipation of marital assets occurs when one spouse intentionally wastes, depletes, or misuses marital property, typically at a time when the marriage is breaking down — and for a purpose that has nothing to do with the marriage itself. Florida’s courts have defined the concept clearly: “Dissipation” has been defined in the domestic relations context as “where one spouse uses marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Romano v. Romano, 632 So. 2d 207, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

This is not about a spouse who makes a poor investment or splurges on an expensive vacation during a healthy marriage. Dissipation is something more deliberate — conduct that reduces what is available for equitable distribution and leaves the other spouse holding less than their fair share.

The Governing Statute: Florida § 61.075(1)(i)

Florida’s equitable distribution statute, § 61.075, governs how courts divide marital property in a dissolution of marriage. The statute begins with the premise that the division of marital assets should be equal between the parties. However, it explicitly identifies dissipation as a factor that can justify an unequal distribution:

“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.” — Fla. Stat. § 61.075(1)(i)

The two-year lookback window is significant. The clock begins running two years before a dissolution petition is filed, meaning a spouse cannot avoid accountability by acting well in advance of the filing — at least in most circumstances.

Proving a Dissipation Claim

Not every questionable expenditure rises to the level of dissipation. Florida courts require more than suspicion or disappointment with a spouse’s spending habits. To succeed on a dissipation claim, the accusing spouse must establish:

• The asset was marital property — dissipation applies only to the marital estate, not a spouse’s separate nonmarital assets.
• The timing aligns with the breakdown of the marriage — spending that occurred during a stable, intact marriage is rarely considered dissipation.
• The conduct was intentional — courts have made clear that mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the spouse disapproves is not enough.
• The funds were used for a nonmarital purpose — the money must have gone somewhere unrelated to the marriage and its ordinary needs.

Dissipation claims require detailed financial evidence. In practice and litigation, discovery tools such as subpoenas for bank and financial records, depositions, and requests for production can be used to uncover hidden spending, secret accounts, and improper transfers. Once the accusing spouse presents sufficient evidence, the burden shifts to the other spouse to justify the expenditure. Florida law requires that dissipation be proven with clear and convincing evidence. Courts will scrutinize bank records, credit card statements, and financial disclosures to determine where the money went and why.

Three Real-World Examples

Understanding how dissipation plays out in practice is the clearest way to appreciate its impact. Here are three common scenarios:

Example 1: Spending Marital Funds on an Extramarital Affair

This is the most frequently litigated form of dissipation in Florida divorce cases. When a spouse uses marital funds to finance an affair — paying for hotel rooms, gifts, travel, or even an apartment for a paramour — those expenditures constitute a classic dissipation claim. The funds were marital property, spent for a decidedly nonmarital purpose, during a period when the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

The Romano case is instructive here. The husband admitted to spending marital funds on his mistress while separated from his wife. The court held that the trial court had erred by failing to credit the wife for those expenditures, and confirmed that marital misconduct that results in the depletion of marital assets “can serve as a basis for an unequal division of marital property, or can be assigned to the spending spouse as part of that spouse’s equitable distribution.”

Example 2: Gambling Away Marital Assets

Casino gambling, sports betting, and reckless speculative trading can all form the basis of a dissipation claim when conducted during the breakdown of the marriage with marital funds. Consider a scenario in which a husband, after the parties have separated and divorce proceedings are underway, loses $20,000 at casinos over several months, drawing from a joint marital account. That spending is entirely for his personal benefit and serves no marital purpose whatsoever. Florida courts have recognized this type of conduct as the kind of intentional misconduct the statute was designed to address.

The key is documentation: bank records and credit card statements showing withdrawals to casinos, combined with evidence of the timing relative to the marital breakdown, can be compelling proof.

Example 3: Transferring or Concealing Assets

A more sophisticated — and calculated — form of dissipation involves a spouse who transfers marital assets to third parties, family members, or shell entities in an attempt to put them beyond the reach of the court. This can include gifting marital funds to a sibling, making fraudulent transfers to a business associate, or hiding money in undisclosed accounts. Unlike gambling or affair-related spending, these transfers are often specifically designed to manipulate the outcome of equitable distribution. Courts treat this conduct with particular scrutiny.

Remedies in Equitable Distribution

When a Florida court finds that dissipation has occurred, it has a meaningful toolkit of remedies to make the non-offending spouse whole.

• The Add-Back Method. The most common remedy is to “add back” the dissipated amount to the marital estate as though it had never been wasted. From there, the court performs an equal (or adjusted) distribution. For example, if the marital estate is worth $200,000 but a spouse dissipated $50,000, the court treats the estate as $250,000, divides it evenly at $125,000 per spouse, and then charges the dissipating spouse with the $50,000 they already spent — meaning they receive only $75,000 from the remaining assets.
• Unequal Distribution. Beyond simply adding back the dissipated amount, the court may award the innocent spouse a greater share of the remaining marital assets to compensate for the misconduct. This is particularly appropriate when the remaining estate is insufficient to make the non-offending spouse whole through the add-back method alone.
• Injunctive Relief and Asset Freezes. When dissipation is ongoing or imminent, Florida courts can act before permanent damage is done. A spouse may seek a temporary injunction or emergency restraining order to freeze marital assets and prevent further dissipation while the case is pending. To obtain such relief, the moving party must generally show irreparable harm, a lack of adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and that the injunction serves the public interest. In many Florida circuits, automatic standing orders already require both parties to maintain the status quo once a petition is filed.
• Attorney’s Fees. A dissipating spouse may also face an award of attorney’s fees to the other party, particularly where the dissipation was egregious or required extensive litigation to uncover and prove.

Acting Quickly Matters

If you suspect your spouse is dissipating marital assets, time is a critical factor. Filing a dissolution petition as soon as possible starts the statutory clock and triggers the protections built into Florida law — including the obligation of both parties to maintain the marital estate. Working with an experienced family law attorney — and in complex cases, a forensic accountant — can make the difference between recovering your fair share and walking away with far less than you are owed. Contact us today at (850) 613-6923 to schedule a consultation or CLICK HERE to submit a confidential request for a consultation and someone will contact you to schedule a consultation.

Andrew Wheeler is a family law attorney serving clients throughout Okaloosa and Walton Counties from offices in Niceville and Santa Rosa Beach, Florida.