Dissipation of Marital Assets in Florida: Fla. Stat. § 61.075(1)(i) and the 2-Year Lookback (2026)

By Nadia Pazos, Family Law Attorney, Pazos Law Group · Updated August 7, 2026

Fla. Stat. § 61.075(1)(i) is the Florida provision that lets a divorce court respond when one spouse drains, hides or burns through marital money. It is a factor, not a separate cause of action — and it carries a literal number most explanations leave out: a 2-year lookback before the petition was filed.

Quick Answer

What can a Florida court do if a spouse drained the marital accounts?

Under § 61.075(1)(i) a court may divide marital property unequally for “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.” That 2-year lookback is the outer edge: spending before it is not reached by this factor.

What Does Fla. Stat. § 61.075(1)(i) Actually Say?

Section 61.075 is titled “Equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities.” Subsection (1) directs the court to set apart each spouse’s nonmarital property and then divide what remains, and it sets the starting point in mandatory language: the court “must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.”

Ten lettered factors follow, (a) through (j). Factor (i) is the dissipation factor, and it reads in full:

“(i) 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)

Three things are worth reading slowly. First, the operative adjective is “intentional.” Second, the statute lists four verbs — dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction — which is broader than simply spending money; destroying or devaluing an asset counts. Third, the provision fixes its own time window, and that window is measured from the filing of the petition, not from the date the couple separated.

How Far Back Can the Court Look? The 2-Year Window in § 61.075(1)(i)

The window has two halves:

Forward: everything “after the filing of the petition” — the whole pendency of the case, however long it runs.
Backward: the “2 years prior to the filing of the petition.” Two years. Not three, not “since the marriage broke down.”

That backward half is the number that decides most real cases, because the damage is usually done in the quiet months before anyone files. It also means the filing date under § 61.052 does double duty: it is both the trigger for the forward half and the anchor for counting the 2 years back.

Conduct older than the 2-year lookback is outside factor (i). It is not necessarily outside the case — § 61.075(1)(j) lets the court weigh “any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties,” and § 61.075(1)(b) covers the parties’ economic circumstances — but a claim built on spending from five years ago is not a § 61.075(1)(i) claim, and it should not be pleaded as one.

What Counts as Dissipation, and What Does Not?

This is where most online explanations get sloppy, so here is the careful version. Florida’s statute does not say “spending.” It says intentional dissipation, waste, depletion or destruction. A marital estate that is smaller on the day of trial than it was two years earlier is not, by itself, evidence of anything.

Is ordinary spending during a marriage dissipation?

Generally, no. Mortgage payments, rent, groceries, tuition, insurance, car payments, medical bills and the ordinary cost of running two households once a couple separates are the normal consumption of a marital estate. So is spending both spouses knew about and participated in. Maintaining the marital home is expressly contemplated by § 61.075(1)(h), which addresses the desirability of retaining that home as a residence for a dependent child.

Are ordinary business losses dissipation?

Usually not. A business that loses money in a bad year has not been intentionally wasted. Section 61.075(6)(a)1.f. treats “the marital interests in a closely held business” as a marital asset to be valued at fair market value, and the same subparagraph directs that goodwill “separate and distinct from the continued presence and reputation of the owner spouse” is enterprise goodwill, a marital asset the court must value. (That treatment traces to Thompson v. Thompson, 576 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1991); note that the statute uses the term “enterprise goodwill” only.) What can cross the line is a business used as a hiding place — deferred receivables, invented salaries, distributions routed to a relative — because that is not a loss, it is a transfer.

Why does “intentional” matter so much?

Because it is the whole burden. The party alleging dissipation is asking the court to depart from the equal-division premise in § 61.075(1), and it is not enough to show the money is gone. The showing is that a spouse used marital funds or marital assets for a purpose unrelated to the marriage, deliberately, inside the statutory window. Negligence, bad luck, a failed investment and a poorly timed sale are different animals from a deliberate diversion.

One structural point helps here: § 61.075(8) provides that “all assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either spouse subsequent to the date of the marriage and not specifically established as nonmarital assets or liabilities are presumed to be marital assets and liabilities,” and that presumption is overcome only by a showing that the item is nonmarital under § 61.075(6)(b). A spouse who cannot explain where a large sum went is arguing against that presumption uphill.

What Patterns Show Up Most Often in Real Cases?

The fact patterns repeat. Recognizing yours is the first step in framing it correctly:

Emptying a joint account shortly before filing, often into a new account in one name only.
Transfers to family members — a parent or sibling “holding” funds until the divorce is over.
Sudden “loans” to friends with no note, no security and no repayment schedule.
Gambling losses, especially undisclosed and concentrated in the lookback window.
Spending on an affair — travel, rent, gifts, a second phone plan — funded from marital accounts.
Undisclosed cryptocurrency moved off an exchange to a private wallet.
Moving business funds: unexplained owner draws, new payroll entries, prepaid expenses, or slowed billing to push revenue past the case.
Selling an asset below market to an insider, which is depletion even though a sale occurred.
Cashing out or borrowing against retirement covered by § 61.076 without telling the other spouse.

None of these is automatically dissipation. Each is a reason to ask where the money went and to demand documents.

How Is Dissipation Proven? Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285 Mandatory Disclosure

Florida does not make you guess. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285, “Mandatory Disclosure,” obligates both parties in a dissolution to exchange a defined set of financial records without anyone having to serve a discovery request. Rule 12.285(b)(2) requires that production for an initial or supplemental proceeding be served “within 45 days of service of the initial pleading on the respondent.”

What does Rule 12.285(e)(8) require for bank accounts?

Twelve months of periodic statements for all checking accounts and all other accounts — savings, money market, certificates of deposit — “regardless of whether or not the account has been closed,” including accounts held individually, jointly, as trustee or guardian, or in someone else’s name on the party’s behalf. For accounts with check-writing privileges the rule also requires canceled checks and registers “so that the payee and purpose of each individual instrument can be ascertained.” That sentence is the single most useful line in the rule for a dissipation claim. Rule 12.285(e)(9) applies the same treatment to brokerage statements.

Does Rule 12.285(e)(11) cover cryptocurrency?

Yes, expressly. The rule requires the most recent statement and 12 months of statements “for any virtual currency transactions” in which either party participated or holds an interest, defines virtual currency as “a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value,” and adds that “a listing of all current holdings of virtual currency shall also be disclosed.” A spouse who omits a wallet is not in a grey area.

What else does mandatory disclosure put on the table?

Rule 12.285(e)(1) — a sworn financial affidavit (Form 12.902(b) under $50,000 of gross annual income, Form 12.902(c) at or above), a requirement that “cannot be waived by the parties.”
Rule 12.285(e)(2) — 3 years of complete federal, state, gift and foreign tax returns with all attachments.
Rule 12.285(e)(6) — loan applications, financial statements and credit reports from the preceding 24 months. These are gold: people tell lenders the truth about assets they later forget to list.
Rule 12.285(e)(7) — deeds for any ownership interest held in the last 3 years, and promissory notes evidencing money owed to a party within 24 months (the “loan to a friend” documents).
Rule 12.285(e)(14) — 24 months of credit card and charge account statements.
Rule 12.285(e)(16) — expressly, “all documents supporting the producing party’s claim that an asset or liability is nonmarital, for enhancement or appreciation of nonmarital property, or for an unequal distribution of marital property.” A dissipation claim is a claim for unequal distribution, so this subdivision is the hook that puts your own supporting records in play too.
Rule 12.285(f)(1) — a continuing duty to supplement “whenever a material change in their financial status occurs.”
Rule 12.285(j) — a filed certificate of compliance (Form 12.932) identifying the documents delivered, sworn to as “complete, accurate, and in compliance with this rule.”

Beyond the rule, the ordinary tools apply: subpoenas to banks, brokerages, employers and exchanges; depositions; and, where the trail is complex, a forensic accountant who can trace funds, reconstruct a lifestyle analysis and quantify the amount at issue. Rule 12.285(g) provides that documents not timely served are inadmissible at the hearing absent good cause, and permits other sanctions under rule 12.380.

What Is the Remedy? Unequal Distribution Under § 61.075(1) and (3)

There is no separate “dissipation judgment” in Florida. The remedy is built into the distribution itself. Because § 61.075(1) requires the court to “begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal,” a finding under factor (i) is what supplies the justification to end somewhere else — in practice, by charging the dissipated amount against the share of the spouse who wasted it.

What written findings does § 61.075(3) require?

In a contested case with no filed stipulation, § 61.075(3) requires that any distribution be “supported by factual findings in the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence with reference to the factors enumerated in subsection (1),” and that the distribution — “whether equal or unequal” — include specific written findings identifying nonmarital assets and ownership interests, identifying marital assets “including the individual valuation of significant assets,” identifying marital liabilities and who is responsible for each, and any other findings needed to explain the court’s rationale.

This is the practical reason a dissipation claim has to be built on records rather than adjectives. The judge has to write down a number and tie it to evidence.

Two related mechanics: § 61.075(9) provides that the court may distribute property “without regard to alimony” and considers alimony under § 61.08 afterward, so a dissipation adjustment is made in the property column first. And § 61.19 governs the timing of the final judgment of dissolution itself.

How Does the § 61.075(7) Cut-Off and Valuation Date Interact With Dissipation?

Section 61.075(7) sets two different dates, and conflating them is a common error:

Classification cut-off: “the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage.”
Valuation date: “the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances,” and the statute expressly allows that “different assets may be valued as of different dates.”

That flexibility matters when money disappears after filing. The classification date is fixed, but the court is not locked into valuing every asset on a single day, which gives it room to address an account that was full at filing and empty at trial.

What About Marital Effort and Nonmarital Assets Under § 61.075(6)(a)1.b?

Dissipation claims often surface alongside a related question: whether a nonmarital asset became partly marital. Section 61.075(6)(a)1.b. makes marital “the enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both.”

Section 61.075(6)(a)1.c. adds the mortgage-paydown rule for nonmarital real property, using a coverture fraction to capture the marital share of passive appreciation — the codification of the analysis in Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2010). Where a spouse quietly used marital funds to improve or pay down a property titled in their own name and then treated the whole thing as separate, the answer usually runs through these subparagraphs rather than through factor (i).

Can a Spouse’s Conduct Shift Attorney’s Fees Under § 61.16 and Rosen v. Rosen (1997)?

It can. § 61.16(1) lets the court, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order one party to pay a reasonable amount for the other’s attorney’s fees, suit money and costs. Under Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme Court held that § 61.16 is to be construed liberally, letting a court also weigh the scope and history of the litigation, its duration, the merits of the parties’ positions, and whether a position is intended to harass, frustrate or delay.

Concealment is expensive by design: it forces subpoenas, motions to compel and expert work. That is exactly the kind of litigation history Rosen permits a court to notice. Fees are a separate ruling from distribution, not an automatic add-on.

What Temporary Relief Can Stop Dissipation While the Case Is Pending?

Be careful with what you may have read elsewhere: Florida does not impose an automatic, statewide injunction freezing marital assets the moment a petition is filed. There is no such provision in chapter 61. Any restraint on accounts or property has to be asked for and ordered, and practice varies by circuit — ask your attorney whether a standing or administrative order has been entered in your case.

What chapter 61 does provide:

§ 61.071, “Alimony pendente lite; suit money.” In every dissolution proceeding “a party may claim alimony and suit money in the petition or by motion, and if the petition is well founded, the court shall allow a reasonable sum therefor.” This is temporary support and litigation funding — it is not an asset freeze, but it is what keeps a spouse who has been cut off from the accounts able to litigate.
§ 61.075(5), interim partial distribution. On a sworn motion showing good cause, the court may enter an interim order identifying and valuing assets and partially distributing them. The statute defines “good cause” narrowly as “extraordinary circumstances that justify an interim partial distribution,” and lists what the court must consider, including the need to avoid loss of an asset through repossession or foreclosure, loss of housing, default on a marital debt, a tax lien, an expense for a dependent child, and the need to fund a reasonable amount of attorney fees and costs.
§ 61.16 fees to level the playing field where one spouse controls the money.
Court-ordered mediation under § 61.183, where a negotiated freeze or accounting is often achievable faster than a contested hearing.

What Should You Do Now If You Suspect Dissipation?

Document before anything changes. Download and save statements for every account you can lawfully access, going back at least through the 2-year lookback. Access is often the first thing to disappear.
Write down a timeline. Dates, amounts, account numbers, and what you were told at the time. Contemporaneous notes are worth more than reconstructed memory.
Do not retaliate by moving assets yourself. This is the most common self-inflicted wound. Draining an account to “protect” it exposes you to the identical factor (i) argument and undermines your credibility on everything else. If you genuinely need funds, the route is § 61.071 or § 61.075(5), not self-help.
Do not access accounts, devices or email you are not authorized to use. Evidence obtained improperly can be excluded and can create separate exposure.
Get advice quickly. The lookback runs from the filing date, and the mandatory-disclosure clock under Rule 12.285(b)(2) starts 45 days after service. Timing decisions are strategy decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is dissipation of marital assets in Florida?

Dissipation is one of the statutory factors that can justify an unequal division of property. Fla. Stat. § 61.075(1)(i) identifies “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.” The word that does the work is “intentional” — the statute does not reach every bad financial decision.

How far back can a Florida court look at my spouse's spending?

Under § 61.075(1)(i) the express window is the period after the petition was filed plus the 2 years immediately before filing. Conduct outside that 2-year lookback is not covered by factor (1)(i), although § 61.075(1)(j) allows a court to weigh “any other factors necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.”

My spouse emptied our joint bank account before filing for divorce. Is that dissipation?

It may be, and the timing usually falls inside the 2-year lookback in § 61.075(1)(i). But emptying an account is not automatically dissipation. The court looks at where the money went. Funds moved to another account both spouses can account for, or spent on the mortgage, tuition and ordinary household costs, are generally not dissipation. Funds spent for a purpose unrelated to the marriage may be.

Is normal spending during a divorce considered dissipation?

Generally no. Ordinary living expenses, ordinary business losses, joint spending both spouses knew about, and the cost of maintaining the marital home under § 61.075(1)(h) are typically treated as the ordinary depletion of a marital estate rather than intentional waste. Reasonable attorney’s fees paid from marital funds are likewise addressed through § 61.16 rather than as dissipation.

How do you prove a spouse hid or drained marital money?

Through mandatory financial disclosure and discovery. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.285 requires a sworn financial affidavit plus 3 years of tax returns, 12 months of statements for every checking, savings and brokerage account (including canceled checks and registers “so that the payee and purpose of each individual instrument can be ascertained”), 24 months of credit records, and 12 months of virtual-currency statements. Subpoenas and a forensic accountant fill the gaps.

Does Florida freeze bank accounts automatically when a divorce is filed?

No. Florida law does not create an automatic statewide injunction freezing marital assets on filing. Any restraint has to be requested and ordered. Ask your attorney whether your circuit or your assigned judge has entered a standing or administrative order in your case, and what temporary relief is available under § 61.071 and § 61.075(5).

What is the remedy if the court finds dissipation?

An unequal distribution. Section 61.075(1) says the court “must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors.” Dissipation is one of those factors, so the court can shift the distribution to account for what was wasted, and under § 61.075(3) must support that with specific written findings of fact.

Can my spouse be ordered to pay my attorney's fees because of dissipation?

Possibly. Fla. Stat. § 61.16(1) keys fee awards to the financial resources of both parties, and Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997), permits a court to consider the scope, history and duration of the litigation and whether a party’s position is intended to harass, frustrate or delay. Litigation driven by a spouse’s concealment fits that analysis.

Official Sources & Related Reading

Speak with a Florida Family Law Attorney

If you believe marital money is being moved or hidden, tell us what you are seeing and Nadia Pazos will follow up personally — confidential, bilingual EN/ES. Prefer to call? (305) 482-1262.

★★★★★ 4.6 on Google · 50+ reviews · AV Preeminent® · 20+ years · Hablamos Español

The information on this page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or sharing this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Pazos Law Group. Statutory text quoted here is taken from the Florida Statutes as published by the Legislature; Florida law and the application of statutes change over time. Please consult a licensed Florida attorney about your specific situation.